Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Rolling Meadows Cooperative, Inc. v. Macatee, 904 N.W.2d 920 (2017)

Citation
Rolling Meadows Cooperative, Inc. v. Macatee, 904 N.W.2d 920 (2017)
Parent Document
Rolling Meadows Cooperative, Inc. v. Macatee, 904 N.W.2d 920 (2017)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
2017-11-27

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text

573 chars
MacAtee argues Rolling Meadows was not entitled to an immediate writ of recovery and order to vacate because her unlawful-retaliation defense remains unresolved. MacAtee is mistaken. The district court specifically found that MacAtee “did not prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence any retaliation or illegality in the voting process that would justify her refusal to pay the increase in carrying charges or sign the Occupancy Agreement.” The district court resolved whether Rolling Meadows unlawfully retaliated against MacAtee in favor of Rolling Meadows. DECISION