Johnson v. Elkton Township

Full title: Kenneth L. Johnson, Appellant, v. Elkton Township, Clay County, Minnesota…

Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Jan 17, 2006

No. A05-748 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2006)

Opinion

No. A05-748.

Filed January 17, 2006.

Appeal from the District Court, Clay County, File Nos. C0-04-2048/C0-04-2051.

Kenneth L. Johnson, (pro se appellant)

Stephen F. Rufer, (for respondent Elkton Township)

Tami L. Norgard, Michelle C. Winkis, (for respondent Buffalo-Red River Watershed District)

Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Halbrooks, Judge, and Crippen, Judge.^_

_ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

KLAPHAKE, Judge

Appellant Kenneth L. Johnson challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondents Elkton Township and Buffalo-Red River Watershed District and dismissing his request for reversal of a 1989 district court decision. Because appellant's claims against respondents were previously litigated in 1989, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment based on the doctrine of res judicata. We therefore affirm.

DECISION

Summary judgment may be granted if there is no genuine issue of material fact and either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. The doctrine of res judicata precludes the litigation of claims that previously have been litigated or could have been litigated in a former action. Mattson v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 414 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Minn. 1987). The appellate court reviews the district court's application of res judicata as a question of law. Care Inst., Incorp.-Roseville v. County of Ramsey, 612 N.W.2d 443, 446 (Minn. 2000).

Res judicata is properly invoked when (1) there is a final judgment on the merits; (2) a subsequent suit involves the same cause of action; and (3) the parties are identical or are in privity with the former parties. In re Trusts by Hormel, 543 N.W.2d 668, 671 (Minn.App. 1996). Here, there was a final judgment in 1989, that judgment was affirmed by this court, and the supreme court denied review in 1990. Buffalo-Red River Watershed Dist. v. Johnson, 1990 WL 48575 (Minn.App. Apr. 24, 1990), review denied (Minn. June 26, 1990). In that earlier case, appellant argued that the height of the township road and dry approach promoted flooding of his land, which are the same issues raised by appellant here. This action also involves the same parties as the prior suit.

In short, all of the requirements for application of res judicata are met. The district court therefore did not err by granting summary judgment based on res judicata.

Affirmed.