Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> <br /> I October 5, 1983 <br /> <br /> I Richard F. Rosow <br /> Attorney at Law <br /> Lang, Pauly & Gregerson, LTD. <br /> I 4108 IDS Center <br /> Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 <br /> <br /> I Re: City of Ramsey, et al. v. State of Minnesota, et al <br /> Court File No. 455510 <br /> <br /> I Dear Sir: <br /> This is in reply to your letter of September 22nd requesting <br /> the above-entitled case be placed on the calendar for trial <br /> I to the end of this since feel it is <br /> prior <br /> year <br /> you <br /> now <br /> ready <br /> for trial. I have also received a letter from the Attorney <br /> General's office concerning your request. <br /> I The history you recite is essentially correct and the under- <br /> standing at the time that the matter was taken from the calendar <br /> I was that it would be placed back on the calendar with a Note <br /> of Issue and not until then. Implicit in that understanding was <br /> the fact that when the Note of Issue was filed it would take its <br /> i normal procedural course on the calendar. Accordingly, opposing <br /> counsel very obviously would not be in the same state of readiness <br /> that you are since it was by your choice that the Note of Issue <br /> was filed at this time. They, of course, would have no idea of <br /> I when going to file it and would assume that there would <br /> you <br /> were <br /> be a sufficient period of time after the filing to allow them to <br /> finish preparations for trial. <br />I As a practical matter, the case cannot be tried before the end <br /> of the year simply because the calendar schedule is already set <br /> I for that time and even if it were tried immediately after the <br /> first o~ the year, it is exceedingly doubtful--in fact it is almost <br /> a certainty--that the matter would not be concluded in time for <br /> action by the legislature when we consider the briefing time <br /> I after trial plus potential appeal time in the matter. Therefore, <br /> I do not ~eel that the time of the meeting of the legislature is <br /> a compellIng factor in assigning a trial date. I do feel that the <br />I matter should be, after all this time, brought on for trial in the <br /> spring of 1984, assuming that this is not going to take up too <br /> much court time in the actual trial process. <br /> <br />I District Co~r~/Administrator cc: Richard S. Slowes <br /> Asst. Attorney Genera <br /> <br /> <br />