Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> Page -2- <br /> <br />711, 716 (1966), where the court stated that "(s)ummary judgment is a blunt <br />instrument and . . . should be employed only where it is perfectly dear that no <br />issue of fact is involved." Accord~ Grondahl v. 5ulluck~ 318 NW2d 240, 242 (Minn. <br />1982); Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co.~ 215 Minn. 167~ $# NW2d 593~ 605 <br />(1957). <br /> <br /> It is also important at the outset to establish what this motion is not about. <br />Defendants Memorandum argues as if it is incumbent upon plaintiffs to prove their <br />case beyond a reasonable doubt in order to defeat this motion. Such is not the <br />standard and plaintiffs do not have to prove their case in order to prevail against <br />defendants' motion. <br /> <br /> II. <br /> <br /> GENUINE DISPUTES AS TO MATERIAL <br /> FACTS DO EXIST <br /> <br /> A. Facts in Genuine DisputE. <br /> <br /> Defendants contend that all the facts necessary to determine this case are <br /> <br />known and cannot be disputed. Defendants include in their list of undisputed facts: <br /> I. The statutory formula. <br /> <br /> 2. The application of the formula by the Department of Revenue. <br /> <br /> 3. The figures used by the Department ot Revenue for each city. <br /> <br /> #. The arr~ount of aid each local unit ot government is entitled to <br /> receive. <br /> <br /> 5. The purpose for local government aid and the rationale for <br /> specific elements. <br /> <br /> (Defendants' Memorandum pages 1#-15) <br /> <br /> Plaintiffs' disagree vehemently with the contention that all this court needs <br />to know are the "facts" itemized above. Conspicuously missing from defendants' <br />list are tw'~ questions which~ in this case~ lie at the very heart ot the equal <br /> <br /> <br />