Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Snyder v. City of Minneapolis, 441 N.W.2d 781.

114 citing documents.

Equity Residential Holdings, LLC v. City of Minneapolis Minn. Ct. App. 2026
no private right to monetary damages for deprivation of due process rights.” The district court disagreed, concluding that there is a “private right to monetary damages 8 for due process claims under [the] Minnesota Constitution.” For this conclusion, : “When procedural due process violations occur, including total denial of constitutionally-required predeprivation hearings, damages are not presumed[;] rather[,] claimants must prove the procedural denial caused damages.” The district court quote
Minor Doe 601, a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 601, Appellants, vs. … Minn. 2025
Explained Minor Doe 601, a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 601, Appellants, vs. … Minn. 2025
But we have also made clear that Anderson did not establish a broad and sweeping rule that a municipality can never be liable in tort for cases fitting within the category of “municipal permitting decisions.” –87 (Minn. 1989).
A22-0547 Brenda Legred, f/k/a Brenda Godlove v. Brent Legred (A22-0543), and The Estate of Darlene Legred, a/k/a Darlene … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[T]he amount and extent of damages is a question of fact.”
Richard Heggemeyer v. Spalding Township, Berg Family Property, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2023
at 144; (explaining that “whether the [district] court’s theory of valuation of damages is speculative or erroneous is a question of law”).
In the Matter of the Contested Case Hearing Request by W. Lorentz & Sons Construction Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Paul, -44 (Minn. 1981); -92 (Minn. 1989); Halla Nursery, -87 (Minn. 2010).
Stacey Marable v. City of Minneapolis, Noah Schuchman, et al., Minneapolis Public Housing Authority Minn. Ct. App. 2020
SRRT Properties, LP, IDC Properties, LLC v. Nova Consulting Group, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Yolanda Majors v. Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The amount of damages is generally a question of fact for the jury, but a plaintiff cannot recover damages that are “speculative, remote, or conjectural.” Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Co - op Elec.
Bret Hedrington v. American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Bret Hedrington v. American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marjorie Gowan, et al v. The Estate of Robert E. Pape, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marjorie Gowan, et al v. The Estate of Robert E. Pape, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re Minnwest Bank Litigation Concerning Real Property in Otsego, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank v. RTB, LLC 873 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Minnwest Bank Litigation Concerning Real Property in Otsego, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank v. RTB, LLC 873 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
nnwest challenges the amount of the district court’s award of diminution-in- value damages to RTB for Building B’s encroachment onto Outlot M. While the district court’s decision to award or not award damages is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, Gabler, d at 734, the factual finding underlying “the amount and extent of damages is a question of fact.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
Paul J. Krause, et al v. City of Elk River Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Paul J. Krause, et al v. City of Elk River Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(landowner brought action against city for negligence when it erroneously issued a building permit); Northernaire Prods., Inc. v. Crow Wing Cnty., 309 Minn. 386, 388, (plaintiffs brought action against county officials to recover for alleged negligent misrepresentation
Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, et al., County of Stearns 865 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, et al., County of Stearns 865 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “city employees .
Randy L. Brandt, et al v. Wayne E. Lee, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Randy L. Brandt, et al v. Wayne E. Lee, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Found., 402 U.S. 313, 350, 91 S. Ct. 1434, 1453 (1971); (noting that the purpose of requiring pleading of affirmative defenses is to give the opposing party notice and an opportunity to argue why the claim should not be barred completely).
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
Our court has observed that a protectable property right is a right that is created and defined by “existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source, such as state law, rules or understandings that support claims of entitlement to certain benefits.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. City of Chanhassen 781 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2010
Explained Halla Nursery, Inc. v. City of Chanhassen 781 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2010
a case seeking damages under 42 U.S.C.
Derosier v. Utility Systems of America, Inc. 780 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Derosier v. Utility Systems of America, Inc. 780 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(“[Wjhether the trial court’s theory of valuation of damages is speculative or erroneous is a question of law.”).
Loppe v. Steiner 699 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Loppe v. Steiner 699 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Yeh v. County of Cass 696 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Yeh v. County of Cass 696 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Appellant argues that Cass County’s and, thus, the district court’s decision was in error.
Unzen v. City of Duluth 683 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Unzen v. City of Duluth 683 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
As part of our de novo review, we give "no deference to conclusions of the courts below.”
Kammueller v. Kammueller 672 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Kammueller v. Kammueller 672 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
McCarty v. City of Minneapolis 654 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
McCarty v. City of Minneapolis 654 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Appellants further argue that Snyder v. City of Minneapolis supports this distinction between damages and liability by describing Minn. Stat. § 466.04 as a limit on “municipal tort liability.”
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Loven v. City of Minneapolis 639 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 2002
Loven v. City of Minneapolis 639 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 2002
(holding liability cap on municipal tort liability to be “ ‘rationally related to the legitimate government objective of insuring fiscal stability to meet and carry out the manifold responsibilities of government,’ ” quoting Lienhard, d at 868 ).
Nelson v. Wrecker Services, Inc. 622 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Nelson v. Wrecker Services, Inc. 622 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
City of Red Wing v. Ellsworth Community School District 617 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
City of Red Wing v. Ellsworth Community School District 617 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Absent such a waiver, however, district courts are obliged to impose the applicable liability limit “whenever damages exceed the statutory limit.” (liability limits of Minn.Stat.