Williams Pipe Line v. City of Mounds View

5 Citing cases

  1. Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. City of Seattle

    316 F. Supp. 2d 900 (W.D. Wash. 2004)   Cited 1 times

    Ramsey County later "retreated from its initial claims" and sought not to prevent Williams from taking action on the pipeline, but "`merely [sought] the authority to order Williams to relocate its pipe when the dictates of road construction or road safety so require.'" Williams Pipe Line Co. v. City of Mounds View, 704 F. Supp. 914, 919 (D. Minn. 1989). The court dismissed Ramsey County's claims without prejudice for lack of an "actual controversy [and] concrete factual setting."Id.

  2. Luigino's, Inc. v. Pezrow Companies

    178 F.R.D. 523 (D. Minn. 1998)   Cited 20 times
    Denying leave to amend to add a punitive damage claim a year after the deadline

    Since the holding in Eisert arose in an action that was solely premised upon strict liability in tort, the full import of the Court's holding had yet to be explored. Therefore, in Williams Pipe Line Co. v. City of Mounds View, 704 F.Supp. 914 (D.Minn.1989), the Court held that the Eisert decision should be limited to actions that were based upon strict liability in tort. In so concluding, the Court reasoned, in part, as follows:

  3. N. S. Rivers Watershed v. Scituate

    755 F. Supp. 484 (D. Mass. 1991)   Cited 9 times
    In North and South Rivers Watershed Assoc., Inc. v. Scituate, 755 F.Supp. 484 (D. Mass. 1991), "the court found that an Order requiring the Town to 'take all steps necessary to plan, design, and construct facilities necessary to adequately treat and dispose of all wastewater' in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations constituted diligent prosecution.

    See Gwaltney of Smithfield v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 484 U.S. 49, 60, 108 S.Ct. 376, 383, 98 L.Ed.2d 306 ("citizen suit is meant to supplement rather than to supplant governmental action"). Cf. Williams Pipe Line v. City of Mounds View, 704 F. Supp. 914, 918 (1989) (construing identical citizen suit preclusion language in Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, 49 U.S.C. § 2001-2014, to indicate that "[w]here the agency has considered the specific concerns raised in the citizen suit, deference to its decision is particularly appropriate"). The Order in this case requires the Town to "take all steps necessary to plan, design, and construct facilities necessary to adequately treat and dispose of all wastewater collected by the Town's sewerage system to meet [state and federal discharge requirements]."

  4. Soucek v. Banham

    524 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 11 times
    In Soucek v. Banham, 524 N.W.2d 478, 480 (Minn.App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Jan. 25, 1995), the court broadly interpreted Keene and applied the personal injury requirement to non-products actions.

    To rest the availability of punitive damages solely on the type of injury contradicts the underlying philosophy because it focuses on the consequences of the actions rather than on the actual conduct. Williams Pipe Line Co. v. City of Mounds View, 704 F. Supp. 914, 921 (D.Minn. 1989). For these reasons, I dissent from that part of the opinion that interprets the Keene case as eliminating punitive damages on all property damage claims.

  5. MUEHLSTEDT v. CITY OF LINO LAKES

    473 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 10 times
    Stating that "punitive damages can properly be awarded against an employer if the employee worked in a managerial capacity and acted in the scope of employment"

    Further, the federal district court has resolved this question in favor of allowing punitive damages in cases without personal injury. See Williams Pipeline Co. v. City of Mounds View, 704 F. Supp. 914, 920-21 (D.Minn. 1989). Finally, the statute itself, stating that punitive damages "shall be allowed" in proper circumstances, Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd.