Showing 41–60 of 128 results
establish a retaliation defense. Appellant also argues that the district court improperly
ownership of the premises but permitted testimony on the issue of retaliation.
building code or ordinance” as necessary to show retaliation under Minnesota Statutes
Seward, through Yess, retaliated against him. And the referee concluded that, “even if
possession and retaliation. The district court then concluded that “[t]he referee correctly
testified that the eviction was in retaliation for him “not letting [Yess] discriminate against
retaliated against for exercising his “rights as an at-will tenant.” Finally, Florin-Clemants
5 [Florin-Clemants] had presented evidence to support a claim of retaliation, the evidence
the retaliation claim.” The district court also determined that the police call “was not
After trial, Central Housing argued that the jury's retaliation finding is legally irrelevant because the retaliation defense does not prevent an eviction premised on breach-of-lease allegations. The district court rejected the argument as a matter of procedure...
the burden-shifting statute includes no language that restricts alleged retaliation evidence
eviction action to retaliate. Because the district court’s erroneous statutory interpretation
he testified that the eviction was in retaliation for “the event when [Florin-Clemants] called
And it denied Harvey’s retaliation defense not because the refrigerator evidence was
act allegedly precipitating the landlord’s retaliation. Id., subd. 2(2). Harvey contends that
Minnesota Statutes § 566.28 (1974), now codified at section 504B.441, set forth the retaliation defense using language closely mirroring the language of the current statute. It provided that, "[a] tenant may not be evicted, nor may his obligations under...
“[T]he retaliation defense available to you under the Minnesota Statute 504B is limited in
testified that the eviction was in retaliation for him asking Yess to perform various repairs to the premises.
...Indeed, the Legislature has provided for not one, but two, separate retaliation defenses, in two separate provisions: Minn. Stat. §§ 504B.285 and 504B.441. That is to say, the Legislature has already delineated the precise circumstances in which a retaliation...
...2d 281, 286 (1972), imposing a burden on the tenant to prove five elements, including that the overriding reason for eviction is retaliation. 5