Doyle v. City of St. Paul
The holding in the court’s own words
We hold that there was no impairment of the contract.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- Krueth v. Independent School District No. 38 496 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- Minnesota Association of Public Schools v. Hanson 178 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1970
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Doyle v. City of St. Paul 204 Minn. 558
Opinion text
Per Curiam. This ease has been here before, and on the merits. Doyle v. City of St. Paul, 204 Minn. 558 , 284 N. W. 291 . Our decision, as to conclusion, was that it be remanded for the entry of judgment on the merits for defendants. No further proceedings have been had in the district court except that judgment has been entered for defendants agreeably to our former decision. Therein we dealt fully with the merits, and we do not feel that there is anything to be added to the consideration and discussion they then had. Plaintiff claims that she had a contract which was impaired by the action of the city. That she had a contract is clear. But it was subject to such change in compensation as has taken place, pursuant to the action of the city within its charter powers. We hold that there was no impairment of the contract. The judgment is affirmed. Mr. Justice Peterson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.