GRUENING v. PINOTTI

Nos. C6-84-1792, C8-84-1857.

364 N.W.2d 907 (1985)

Ronald E. GRUENING, individually, Respondent, v. Floyd N. PINOTTI, individually, Appellant (C6-84-1792), Floyd N. Pinotti as Sheriff of Chisago County and the County of Chisago, Appellants, (C8-84-1857).

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

April 2, 1985.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Steven A. Sicheneder, Christensen, Jennings & Sicheneder, PA, North Branch, for respondent,

James E. Snoxell, Henningson, Peterson & Associates, Ltd., Minneapolis, for appellant (C6-84-1792).

James R. Clifford, Chisago Co. Atty., Center City, for appellants (C8-84-1857).

Heard, considered and decided by SEDGWICK, P.J., and FOLEY and CRIPPEN, JJ.


OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge.

The trial court, after denying appellant Floyd Pinotti's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, certified as important and doubtful the question of whether respondent Ronald Gruening, an alleged alcoholic, was a disabled person protected under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (1981). The court did not answer the certified question. The parties did not stipulate to facts; as a result, the trial court made no findings of fact...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases