Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Slezak v. Ousdigian, 110 N.W.2d 1.

35 citing documents.

Minn. 2022
See, (holding that “the courts will not control the discretionary power of the attorney general in conducting litigation for the state”); State ex rel.
In Re Proposed Petition to Recall Hatch 628 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2001
In Re Proposed Petition to Recall Hatch 628 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2001
In response, the Attorney General relies upon the broad discretion afforded the Attorney General when representing the state, citing Head v. Special School District No. 1, 288 Minn. 496, 503 , overruled on other grounds, Nyhus v. Civil Service Bd., 305 Minn. 184 , Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303, 308 , and State, ex rel.
Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom 615 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2000
Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom 615 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2000
Conant v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P. 603 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Conant v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P. 603 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
8.01 (1998); Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303, 308
Humphrey v. Shumaker 524 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Humphrey v. Shumaker 524 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303, 308 , see generally Head v. Special School District No. 1, 288 Minn. 496 , cert.
Seafirst Commercial Corp. v. Speakman 384 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Seafirst Commercial Corp. v. Speakman 384 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303, 306 , () states, “Rule 9.02 of Rules of Civil Procedure specifically requires that the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity in a compla
Christensen v. Minneapolis Municipal Employees Retirement Board 331 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 1983
Christensen v. Mpls. Mun. Emp. Retire. Bd. 331 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 1983
Christensen v. Minneapolis Municipal Employees Retirement Board 331 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 1983
(1949), we declined to find a vested right in paid sick leave for public employees and, in so doing, observed that Johnson holds that “statutory provisions for payment by a governmental authority to public employees of retirement pensions create no contractual or vested rights, but on the contrary constitute the grant of a gratuity terminable at the will of the grantor * * In Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303, 309 , -6 (1961), in denying plaintiff employees the right to an accounting from the d
Christensen v. Mpls. Mun. Emp. Retire. Bd. 331 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 1983
In Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303, 309 , -6 (1961), in denying plaintiff employees the right to an accounting from the defendant secretary of PERA, we observed that "[t]he presumption is that a statute or an ordinance granting a gratuity to a public employee such as a retirement pension is not intended to create private contractual or v
Beckman v. St. Louis County Board of Commissioners 241 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1976
Beckman v. St. Louis County Board of Commissioners 241 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1976
See, Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303
Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709 215 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1974
Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709 215 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1974
Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303 , Green v. Independent Consol.
Sylvestre v. State 214 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1973
Sylvestre v. State 214 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1973
Paul, 227 Minn. 477 , and Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303
Forsblad v. Jepson 195 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1972
Forsblad v. Jepson 195 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1972
Bearing in mind that Rule 56.03 is designed to dispose of a specious claim in any type of action, Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303 , and that upon the record submitted by the parties all inferences from circumstantial evidence and all doubts must be re *460 solved, against the movant, without undertaking to determine credibility, Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co. 250 Minn. 167 , we are not pers
Head v. Special School District No. 1 182 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1970
Head v. Special School District No. 1 182 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1970
Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303 , 110 N. W. (2d) 1 .
St. Paul Electrical Workers Welfare Fund v. Cartier 167 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1969
St. Paul Electrical Workers Welfare Fund v. Cartier 167 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1969
See, Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303 , 110 N. W. (2d) 1 .
Halverson v. Rolvaag 143 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1966
Halverson v. Rolvaag 143 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1966
Paul, 227 Minn. 477 , 35 N. W. (2d) 705 (sick leave); Johnson v. State Employees’ Retirement Assn. 208 Minn. 111 , Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Dept. Relief Assn. 125 Minn. 174 , Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303 , 110 N. W. (2d) 1 (pension); Mattill v. Public Employees Retirement Board, 261 Minn. 371 , 112 N. W. (2d) 800 (pension).
Adelman v. Onischuk 135 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 1965
Adelman v. Onischuk 135 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 1965
The requisites of a class suit are discussed in Kainz v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (7 Cir.) 194 F. (2d) 737, 740; Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303 , 110 N. W. (2d) 1 ; Knowles v. War Damage Corp. 83 App. D. C. 388, 391, 171 F. (2d) 15, 18; and Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U. S. 32, 41 , 61 S. Ct. 115, 118 , 85 L. ed. 22, 27, 132 A. L. R. 741, 746.
Mattill v. Public Employees Retirement Board 112 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1961
Mattill v. Public Employees Retirement Board 112 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1961
5 Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303 , 110 N. W. (2d) 1 .