|
--..._�.... . .. .
<br />�
<br />�3? Et9 F:�
<br />UiL-x=l .�'Izltiig vu�� ����
<br />to inspect or repair thQ
<br />ty to warn his ge•�ndson qf
<br />dning in the silo after thg
<br />zated, See Pefer.sqrt v. B�-
<br />,1, 374, 1991v.W.2d 839, G47
<br />e1ling owned the farm, silq
<br />tric switch; as already not-
<br />whether he leased these
<br />'axms. Stelling Farms has
<br />ty to maintain a safe work-
<br />�scape liability by ciaiming
<br />ing owned the equipment
<br />See Wood 503 �i.�'2d at
<br />•1Gng, however, ma� be 3�a-
<br />,r if he did not lease ~��
<br />snt to Stelling Farms; in
<br />�telling still had possession
<br />�uipment and may be joint-
<br />'.€able with Stelling Farms.
<br />(Second) of Torts § 3a5
<br />t:i'. iL�YJr I:r �in:r
<br />��Hxry ft,r �h;-iiri
<br />�.u�e�;i� [�w�cl�iva tha�
<br />.�ce ai�er lessee has taken
<br />Fie.� v, Waif i�er_ 293
<br />'18 N.W.2d 146, I4� (19i2)
<br />by farmhand against farm
<br />st owner of piece of farm
<br />remand, the district court
<br />whether the farm land and
<br />'nrmally leased to Steliing
<br />ynri�vd�� Enterprise Li.a-
<br />nts argue that because
<br />and Stelling Farms were
<br />�t venture or joint enter-
<br />iing was jointly and sever-
<br />�ei�ing FatTns' negligence.
<br />venture or joint enterprise
<br />vhen necessaty to impute
<br />n two entities that other-
<br />I relationship. See Rehn-
<br />:80, 2$3, 234 l+i. W.2d i b 1, 762
<br />omitted). �r.���i Gilbe�
<br />9�� III �'�t• I�S�G;j`ynLf
<br />s injurtes, hr n� bs
<br />MANKATO FREE PRESS v. CITY OF N. MANKATO Minn. ���
<br />CltswSb3 N.W=� 291 (Minn.App. 1997)
<br />�. � ��. 'Minnesota Homes, 236 Minn. 230, administrator job when they decided to invite
<br />� ��. N,W,2d 454, 456 (1952) ("Generally applicants for interviews; (2) district court
<br />:x�]an¢. a joint venture is created—assum- improperly decided fact issue in finding that
<br />�� that a corporation has not been orga- council did not use simultaneous, serial one-
<br />��d and the circumstances do not establish on-one interviews of each finalist "to avoid a
<br />g technical partnership"). Because Gilbert public hearing or to fashion agreement on an
<br />gtellin� has a legal relationship with Stell- issue": and (3) council violated Open Meeting
<br />utg Farms as its officer and shareholder? Law by taking vu7-itten straw vote to narrow
<br />joint venture or joint enterprise liability list of finalists during meeting and not mak-
<br />does not apply here. ing results public until after the meeting.
<br />DECISION
<br />The district court 4'R�4� in granting sum-
<br />mary judgment to Gilbert St,�lling. We
<br />therefore reverse the grant of summary
<br />judgment to Gilbert Stelling and the dismiss-
<br />a1 of ; ti� action against him.
<br />Reversed and remanded.
<br />a �J �r�rr■�ur
<br />t
<br />VL�.�KAT(? FREE PRESS ��� ����
<br />The Free Press, Appellant,
<br />CITY O F NORTH NfANiCA'iQ,
<br />et s[., Respondents.
<br />No. C9-96-2277.
<br />Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
<br />May 13, 1997
<br />��"�'�°P� sued �i�' �rr� �j' S�i1h�0
<br />members, claiming that defendants violated
<br />Government I�s4� Practices Act and Open
<br />1�eeting Law. The Nicollet County District
<br />Courk, Terence M. Dempsey, J., g,xnCr,3 da-
<br />tend�,nts' motion for summary judgment, and
<br />nen•spaAer appealed. �,1}� Court of Appeals,
<br />Huspessi, J., held that: (1) council was obli-
<br />gated to identify names of applicants for city
<br />'�• Indeed, if yhareholders in a small, closely held
<br />Corporation fail � make 6armsf dlssinctione be-
<br />tween eorporate arnt individual property ar
<br />Wnds. the corporate enc9ty may be disregarde�
<br />+�d the sharehoidcrs may be held personally
<br />Reversed and remanded
<br />1. Recorda �S�!
<br />Under Government Data Practices Act.
<br />city eouncil was obligated to identify names
<br />of applicants for city administrator job when
<br />they decided to invite applicants for inter-
<br />views. M.S.A g 13.43, subd. 3.
<br />2. Administrative Law and Procedure
<br />��
<br />Purpose of Open Meeting Law is to pro-
<br />hibit secret meetings that make it impossible
<br />for public to become fully infnrn�e�, assure
<br />pub[ic's right to information, and give public
<br />opportunity to express its views. M.SA
<br />9 471.705, subd. 'I.
<br />3. Judgment ��R1{75•17
<br />On motion for summary judgment on
<br />claim under Qpen Me�ting Law, district
<br />court improperly decided fact issue in t"znding
<br />that city council did not use simultaneous,
<br />serial one-c>n-ane interviews of each of five
<br />�nalists for citv administrator "to avoid a
<br />public hearing or to fashion agreement on an
<br />��F�'' ]4[.9,A. � �1,�� �ub� l�
<br />d_ !rTllnie[pnl �'.�spwr�l��ar ��
<br />City council violated Open Meeting Law
<br />by taldng written straw vote to narrow list o�
<br />finalists for city administrator during meet-
<br />ing and not making results public until after
<br />the meeting. 11+�.SA 9 471.705, subd. 1.
<br />113b1e fOT' corpora€e obligations, which may B�'%'1'
<br />ably include tort judgments. 5ee wesr concord
<br />Conservutiorr Club, Irrc. v. Chilson, 306 N.W.2d
<br />893. s��-9a (M��n. t�s t?.
<br />
|