Laserfiche WebLink
rignta, jury or Sou discrimination, and school desegregation. <br />Plaintiffs' action helped to clarify the law on this issue; <br />nowever, it could hardly be deemed an advancement of civil rignts. <br />CONCLUSIUU <br />Respondent Welsh now seeks a tnird opportunity to reargue <br />his claim to attorney fees. After losing in the trial court and <br />en uen c review or this court, Welsh still Delieves that at least <br />lU 3uuges nave misapplied and misconstrued the statutory and case <br />law wnicn was exnaustiveiy briefed oy the parties on the main <br />appeal. Neisn's effort should De curtailed before the City is put <br />to any greater expense and tills court's docket is cluttered by <br />additional briefing and arguments. <br />Accordingly, appellant City of Orono requests that <br />respondent's petition for rehearing be denied. The City also <br />requests that the court award it reasonaile attorney fees. Minn. <br />R. App. P. 14U.03. <br />uated: Septemoer 2d, 19b4. <br />13o5a <br />PVPdAN, dAIK, SCNdOdRICN, KAUFiIAi4 a DUTY, <br />Ltd. <br />By <br />race D. Malker0 n, Reg. No. 71000 <br />Thonas J. Radoi Reg. No. 137U29 <br />4344 IDS Cen 333-4800 <br />Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 <br />Attorneys for Detendant-Appellant <br />City of Orono <br />-5- <br />