Snyder v. City of Minneapolis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that municipal damages cap did not violate Minn. Const. art. I, § 8, because the purpose of the cap is a “legitimate legislative objective”
• noting that conduct that violates a municipality’s adopted policy is not protected from tort liability under the discretionary-function exception
• suggesting that a decision to issue a permit that was explicitly not allowed under a municipal zoning ordinance was not subject to the discretionary-function exception
• holding that property owner “e[ould not] be charged with knowledge of the illegal nature of his proposed land use and [could] recover in negligence against the City,” where “the city’s policyf, whose application made owner’s proposed land use unlawful,] was found to be unwritten”
• noting that the purpose of requiring pleading of affirmative defenses is to give the opposing party notice and an opportunity to argue why the claim should not be barred completely
• estoppel does not provide basis for damages claim but is defense against claim of estopped party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).