Court Rulings

Public records—Trade secrets submitted as part of an application to a governmental body—Request for access to and right to inspect and copy documents in the application—Governmental body asserts that the records are excepted from disclosure—Court required to make in camera inspection of documents at issue to determine which involve trade secrets that are protected from disclosure.

Public employment—Demotion of captain to sergeant based on his repeated sexual harassment of female correctional officers who worked under his supervision, upheld.

Appeal from the District Court, Harris County, Ewing Werlein, J. Page 311

<p>Action in the district court for St. Louis county by the father of plaintiff minor to recover $2,500 for personal injury. The ease was tried before Hughes, J., and a jury which returned a negative answer to the question whether the driver’s relation to the defendant was that of- an independent contractor, and an affirmative answer to the question whether at the time of the injury defendant had the right to, and did in fact, control the driver as to the time, place or manner of performing his work, and a general verdict in favor of plaintiff for $750. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, if plaintiff consented to a reduction of the verdict to $500, defendant appealed.</p>

<p>Appeal, No. 278, Oct. T., 1892, by Joseph Walton, from order of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., April T., 1892, No. 6, entering judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence in favor of John A. Murtland, administrator.</p> <p>Assumpsit to recover the amount of a deposit.</p> <p>From the record it appeared that the action was brought against Joseph Walton and a large number of other defendants, who were alleged to be “ late partners doing business under the name and style of the American Bank.” Walton filed an affidavit of defence, .but several of the defendants neither filed an affidavit of defence, nor had an appearance entered for them of record. The court entered judgment against Walton for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, but no judgment was entered against the other defendants.</p> <p>Error assigned was, in ordering judgment to be entered against appellant in default of sufficient affidavit of defence when it appears from the record that there the action is a joint one, and no disposition whatever is made of the case against the other defendants.</p>

<p>Writs of error to the Court of Oyer and Terminer of the County of Alleqheny. Of October and November Term 1875. No. 128 and 129. _</p> <p>_ At the December sessions 1874 of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, William Murray and Frederick Myers were indicted for the murder of .Gotthold Wahl; the murder was charged in the indictment as having been committed in the perpetration of a robbery.</p> <p>There was no question in the Supreme Court arising from the facts in the case.</p> <p>The following order was made at the March Session 1875, of the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny county :—</p> <p>“And now, February 27th 1875, it is ordered that the Hon. 'Thomas Ewing, one of the judges of this court, be and he is hereby detailed in accordance with the Act of Assembly, to hold the ensuing March Term of the courts of Oyer and Terminer and Quarter Sessions of the Peace, and that the Hon. John M. Kirkpatrick and J. W. F. White, the other judges of this court, are hereby detailed to assist in holding said term of said courts, when called on by the presiding judge, in the trial of cases requiring the presence of two judges, or in the absence or inability of the said judge.”</p> <p>On the 27th of February 1875, Pamph. L. 62, an Act of Assembly was passed, enacting:— .</p> <p>Sect. 1. That before the commencement of each term of the Courts of Oyer and Terminer and Quarter Sessions of the Peace, the judges of each of the Courts of Common Pleas of Allegheny county shall alternately detail one of its judges to hold, and if they see fit, one or more judges to assist in holding said Courts of Oyer and Terminer and Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the next ensuing term.</p> <p>Sect. 2.' Each of said judges so detailed may separately hold the said Courts of Oyer and Terminer and Quarter Sessions of the Peace during such term, * * * provided, that on -the trial of indictments for homicide, two of said judges shall sit jointly, except in case of sickness or inability to attend,

<p>Appeal from Nisi Prius: In Equity, No. 15, to January Term 1872.</p> <p>The bill in this case was filed November 1st 1871.</p> <p>The plaintiffs were Robert Steed, elder; John M. Buchanan, ■John Glenn, Thomas Miller, William Steen, James Creighton and William Reynolds, trustees ; and William A. Buchanan, James McClean, Samuel McClay and James Kerr, members of “The Fifth Reformed Presbyterian Congregation in the District of Kensington in the county of Philadelphiathe defendants were A. G. McAuley, James Dittie, Robert H. McMunn, Thomas Mc-Keever, Samuel Lyons, Andrew Loughridge, Nathaniel Dittie, Joseph Caldwell, Robert Graham, Samson McDowell and Robert Spratt.</p> <p>The Fifth Reformed Presbyterian Congregation above named, was incorporated by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia on the 9th of March 1850.</p> <p>The following are parts of the constitution :</p> <p>Article 2. The subscribers and such others as shall hereafter become members of said congregation and who adhere to and maintain the system of religious principles declared and exhibited by Reformed Presbyterian Synod of North America (of which the Rev. Doctors Wylie and Crawford are now officiating members), shall be a corporation, &c.</p> <p>Article 4. There shall be a board of trustees, which shall consist of not less than five members, who shall be recognised by the session of this congregation as being in full communion with the church.</p> <p>Article 5. There shall be an annual election for the members of th,e board of trustees on the first Monday in January in every year, of which notice shall be given two weeks previous from the pulpit. The election shall be by ballot in the church.</p> <p>Article 6. The persons electing or capable of electing shall be all who are in full communion with the congregation, as well as all pew-holders, though not in full communion.</p> <p>The question raised by this case was, who were “ The Fifth Reformed Presbyterian Church in the District of Kensington,” &c.

Arbitration agreement; contract; meeting of the minds. Judgment affirmed. Appellees must have expressly agreed to the terms of arbitration to be compelled to relinquish the dispute to arbitration. The placement of the conditions on a tablet with a copy posted on the back of the passenger seat does not establish the critical meeting of the minds in contract formation. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion to compel arbitration.

Summary judgment-political subdivision-negligent maintenance of sewer-record did not establish genuine issues of material fact as to whether political subdivisions negligently maintained sewer no evidence showed that political subdivision had prior actual or constructive notice that sewer was clogged or that it acted unreasonably once it learned that sewer was clogged even if political subdivision failed to conduct routine maintenance and inspection, the evidence failed to demonstrate that routine maintenance and inspection would have prevented the clog from forming or the sewage from intruding into appellant's home.

1. A party may use allegations in a verified complaint to support or oppose a motion for summary judgment if (1) the allegations are made on personal knowledge, (2) the allegations are based on facts that would be admissible in evidence, and (3) the face of the complaint shows the competence of the verifying party to testify on the matters stated, consistent with Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03(d). 2. Minnesota does not recognize a cause of action for breach of an illusory contract.

The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee on appellant's race discrimination and sex discrimination claims. Judgment affirmed.

Dismissal of Moore plaintiffs' First Claim, Count 2, for battery that occurred within the notice period reversed; dismissal of Demma's First Claim, Count 2, for battery reversed; dismissal of Moore plaintiffs' Second Claim for hostile work environment that occurred within the notice period reversed; dismissal of Conley's Fourth Claim for disability discrimination reversed; remanded for further proceedings; otherwise affirmed.