Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> i <br /> i <br /> <br /> I <br /> i <br /> <br /> I <br /> <br />STATE OF MINNESOTA <br />COUNTY OF RAMSEY <br /> <br /> DISTRICT COURT <br />SECOND 3UDICIAL DISTRICT <br /> <br />City of Rarnsey, a Municipal <br />corporation; and Thomas Gamec, <br />a resident of the City of Ramsey, <br /> <br />Plaintiff, <br /> <br />VS. <br /> <br />State of Minnesota; and Arthur C. <br />Roemer, Commissioner of Revenue, <br /> <br />Defendants, <br /> <br />Court File No. #55510 <br /> <br />PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM <br />IN OPPOSITION TO <br />DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR <br />SUMMARY ~UDGMENT <br /> <br /> I. <br /> <br /> THE STANDARD FOR GRANTING SUMMARY 3UDGMENT <br /> <br /> This memorandum is submitted in opposition to defendants' motion for <br />summary judgment. <br /> <br /> Defendants' motion for summary judgment should only be granted if "the <br />pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together <br />with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material <br />fact and that (defendant) is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Minn. R. <br />Civ. P. 56.03. The Minnesota Supreme Court has viewed the moving party's burden <br />in a summary judgment motion as a very substantial one. In Nord v. Herreid, 305 <br />NW2d 337, 339 (Minn. 1951), the court stated that "all doubts and factual inferences <br />must be resolved against the moving party," and that "it is no part of a court's <br />function to decide issues of fact but solely to determine whether there is an issue <br />of fact to be tried." The care with which the inquiry required by Rule 56.03 should <br />be conducted was also emphasized in Donna), v. Boulware, 275 Minn. 37, 14# NW2d <br /> <br /> <br />