Anderson v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota, No. 16-1661 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff and others filed suit alleging federal and state law claims arising from a nuisance abatement carried out on his land. The district court dismissed the claims based on the doctrine of claim preclusion. The court held that plaintiff's federal action challenging the nuisance abatement was precluded by the summary judgment granted in the Ramsey County District Court and affirmed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In this case, the actions involved the same set of factual circumstances, same parties or privies, there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior litigation, and plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this matter in the prior action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Benton, Circuit Judge, and Strand, District Judge] Civil case - Nuisance. Plaintiffs' federal action challenging a 2011 nuisance abatement by the City of St. Paul is precluded by the summary judgment granted in the state trial court and affirmed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals; the action arose from the same set of factual circumstances, involved the same parties or privies, the state court action resulted in a final judgment on the merits and plaintiffs had a full an fair opportunity to litigate the matter in state court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.