Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Citation
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Parent Document
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Jurisdiction
- Minnesota (state)
- Effective Date
- 2019-03-06
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8286581/ellis-v-doe/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (45)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Section 645
- Section 645
- Section 645
- Section 645
- Section 645
Full Text
643 charsThe presumption that the Legislature does not intend to abrogate the common law when it does not expressly do so, the plain language of the rent-escrow statute, and the rationale behind the decision of Fritz v. Warthen all support a conclusion that a tenant is not required to follow the procedures of the rent-escrow statute when asserting a common-law habitability defense in an eviction action. Ellis provides no persuasive arguments to the contrary. Therefore, we conclude that the tenant was not required to follow the procedures for a statutory rent-escrow action before asserting his habitability defense to Ellis's eviction action. II.