Minnesota law requires that five elements be established in a claim of tortious
interference with a contractual relationship: “(1) the existence of a contract; (2) the
alleged wrongdoer’s knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of its
breach; (4) without justification; and (5) damages.” Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., 573
N.W.2d 356, 362 (Minn. 1998) (internal quotation omitted).x
Sharon and Bill State and allege that City of St. Paul,County of Ramsey are liable for either their fraudulent and
intentional misrepresentations or their negligent misrepresentations. To succeed in
a fraudulent misrepresentation claim under Minnesota law, a plaintiff must prove that:
(1) there was a false representation by a party of a past or existing
material fact susceptible of knowledge; (2) made with knowledge of the
falsity of the representation or made as of the party's own knowledge
without knowing whether it was true or false; (3) with the intention to
induce another to act in reliance thereon; (4) that the representation
caused the other party to act in reliance thereon; and (5) that the party
suffer[ed] pecuniary damage as a result of the reliance.1HöÐ‹
property interest and (2) the defendant deprives the plaintiff of that interest.” Olson
v. Moorhead Country Club, 568 N.W.2d 871, 872 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (internal
underlying tort. D.A.B. v. Brown, 570 N.W.2d 168, 172 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997)
(citing Harding v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 41 N.W.2d 818, 824 (Minn. 1950)). Similarly,
a claim for “[u]njust enrichment may be founded on failure of consideration, fraud,
or mistake, or “situations where it would be morally wrong for one party to enrich
himself at the expense of another.” Mon-Ray, Inc. v. Granite Re, Inc., 677 N.W.2d
434, 440 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (internal quotation omitted). Noble bases its unjust
enrichment claim on its allegations of fraud and other tortious conduct, including
[JURIST] Citigroup Inc., Wachovia Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. [corporate websites] announced Wednesday that they had extended [Citigroup press release] an agreement to freeze litigation activity [JURIST report] through 8 AM Friday. According to Citigroup, the agreement provides for 1. A standstill of all formal litigation activity effective immediately; 2. Ceas[ing] any formal discovery ... [more].
Posted by Joe Shaulis on October 8, 2008, 5:32 pm
No state shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Art. XIV, § 1.
The Minnesota Constitution contains both a general equal protection clause and a clause requiring uniformity of taxation. Minn. Const. art. I, § 2 (general); art. X, § 1 (uniformity clause).
Most tax laws are subject to “rational basis” review under the Equal Protection Clause; to be constitutional they must simply have a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose.
The Equal Protection Clause was initially adopted primarily to limit or prohibit racial discrimination by the states. The courts have also applied it to proscribe other forms of invidious discrimination (e.g., based on religion, ethnicity, etc.). However, legislation often necessarily involves “discrimination” in the broader sense that groups of individuals or businesses are treated differently based on particular characteristics (e.g., amounts of income, type of business, uses of property, etc.) that in the abstract are unobjectionable. The clause was not intended to restrict legislation that imposed different tax or regulatory rules, for example, on retailers than on manufacturers. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has developed a stricter standard of review for laws that create “suspect classifications” or deprive someone of a “fundamental right” as a compared with more benign legislative classifications. The lines between the two categories (perhaps inevitably) blur at the edges. At times the Court has explicitly talked about a middle level of review.
Strict scrutiny applies to “suspect classifications” (such as
In April 2006, Minnetronix received a Strategic Investment Fund (SIF) $330,000 Forgivable
Loan to retain 95 jobs and create 15 new FTEs. The purpose of the loan was for leasehold
improvements for a 22,000 sf expansion at their 1635 Energy Park Drive location. The total
investment in the building was approximately $2,582,000 for tenant improvements, machinery,
equipment, and IT infrastructure.
|When the local bank takes a hit for its community|
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
|Claims of Arlyce R. Eide, Linda K. Giles, Donna M. Larson, and Karen Olson.|
|2.||Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the matter of Aychoeun Tea vs. the City of Saint Paul.|
|6.||Resolution 08-1097 - Authorizing District Energy and District Cooling Subordination Agreements and consenting to the issuance by the Saint Paul Port Authority of additional bonds for District Heating and District Cooling. (GS 3059856)|
GS3059856-Resolution Dirty Coal Burning Plant adverse to our Health, Clean Air Doctrine without EAS EIS worksheets, issuing Bonds contrary to this alleged nonprofit, utility.
16. Second Reading - 08-1082 - An ordinance granting authority to the Port Authority to issue and sell bonds in the aggregate principal amount necessary to generate $16,000,000 of net proceeds for acquisition and redevelopment of the 3M Saint Paul Campus. (GS 3059718)THEREFORE: SHARON AND BILL VICTIMS OF THE CITY OF ST.PAUL, COUNTY OF RAMSEY
[JURIST] The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] said Tuesday that it has begun an agency review [SEC statement] of US financial accounting procedures, including "mark-to-market" [SEC backgrounder] rules, pursuant to the recently-passed $700 billion financial rescue bill [JURIST report]. The SEC statement coincided with the testimony Tuesday of current and former ... [more].
Posted by Andrew Gilmore on October 8, 2008, 6:50 am
Supreme Court hears search and seizure, pension cases
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments Tuesday in three cases, including two raising issues of criminal procedure. In Herring v. United States [Cornell LII backgrounder; merit briefs], 07-513, the Court will decide whether evidence seized during a search incident to an arrest must be suppressed when the sole premise for the arrest was ... [more].
Posted by Joe Shaulis on October 8, 2008, 6:18 am
Disclaimer on Site'sThe Electronic Communications Privacy Act MY FindLaw (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. Sharon4Anderson Scribd pdf files. The law was enacted in 1986 and covers various forms of wire and electronic communications. According to the U.S. Code, electronic communications "means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce." ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. Additionally, the law prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure. The Legal Institute provides Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which encompasses ECPA. Blogger: Dashboard AndersonAdvocates/ddaweborg.msnw
NOTICE: This communication is not encrypted. This e-mail (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers