Quinlivan & Hughes attorneys bring decades of experience to their defense of governmental entities. We frequently represent or have represented most units of government, including the State of Minnesota, townships, school districts, municipalities and many of Minnesota's 87 counties. Our firm’s experience in handling governmental lawsuits extends to a wide range of litigated matters involving governmental entities, including those related to the following subjects:
· Data Practices Act
· Open Meeting Law · Employment Law matters, including: EEOC and Minnesota Department of Human Rights charges; ADA lawsuits; actions under the ADEA; Whistleblower claims; and other employment law related claims · Public Official Errors and Omissions · Section 1983 civil rights · Land Use matters, including variance appeals, conditional use permit appeals, and environmental challenges · Government Vehicles · Joint Power Entity Defense · General Liability · Premises Liability
Our attorneys make frequent presentations on government law issues on such topics as:
· Government Immunities
· Land Use Claims · Employment Law · Township Law · County Law
The firm has often represented governmental entities in state and federal appellate courts. Some of the firm’s representative reported cases include:
Kismet Investors v. County of Benton, 617 N.W.2d 85 (Minn. 2000)
A county’s decision to deny a variance that would allow an adult use business to operate within certain distances from churches, residences and schools was affirmed. Hoppe v. Klaperich, 543 N.W.2d 635 (Minn. 1996) The firm convinced the Minnesota Supreme Court to reverse a decision by the Court of Appeals that held the county could be civilly liable for a violation of the Vulnerable Adults Reporting Act. Willis v. Sherburne County, 555 N.W. 2d 277 (Minn. 1996) The firm successfully argued that a teacher’s challenge to her employment should be dismissed because it was untimely. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed that a teacher’s challenge to her termination from employment involved a challenge to government action that was subject to only limited review. P.L. v. Aubert, 545 N.W.2d 666 (Minn. 1996) The firm successfully defended a principal and school district in a case that involved allegations of sexual abuse. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the school district was not automatically liable for the actions of a teacher who was alleged to have had sexual contact with a student. The court also ruled that student teacher abuse is not so foreseeable that the school district should have prevented the particular abuse alleged.
|
