green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
25.8 score
“constitutional challenges are questions of law, which we review de novo.”
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to Lynn Rogers
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
But see Campbell, 756 N.W.2d at 275 (refusing to void a statute for vagueness when “the danger of arbitrary enforcement is speculative and insufficient to render the statute unconstitutionally vague as applied”).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In the Matter of the Unlicensed Debt Collection Activity of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
constitutional challenges are questions of law, which we review de novo.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eric Sorenson v. Joanne Sorenson
See Minn. Stat. § 523.21 ; State v. Campbell, 756 N.W.2d 263, 271 (Minn. App. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sorenson v. Sorenson
“The relationship between an attorney-in-fact and a principal under a POA is a fiduciary one.” State v. Campbell, 756 N.W.2d 263, 271 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Andrew Matiatos
State, City of Minneapolis v. Reha, 483 N.W.2d 688, 691-92 (Minn. 1992). “[S]crutiny is more demanding when a defendant challenges a statute implicating fundamental constitutionally protected activity, such as speech and assembly, versus a statute prohibiting conduct that is constitutionally within the power of the state to punish, such as blocking sidewalks or damaging property.” State v. Campbell, 756 N.W.2d 263, 269 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Dec. 23, 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Broten
“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a legislative enactment define a criminal offense with sufficient defi niteness and certainty that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” State v. Campbell, 756 N.W.2d 263, 269 (Minn.App.2008) (quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec. 23, 2008). “[Vlagueness challenges that do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts at hand.” State v. Becker, 351 N.W.2d 923, 925 (Minn.1984) (citing United States v.…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Harlin
However, “this court will not invoke principles of lenity when the statute at issue is not ambiguous.” State v. Campbell, 756 N.W.2d 263, 275 (Minn.App.2008), review denied (Minn. Dec. 23, 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Basal
(2×)
“Finally, courts should construe a statute to avoid absurd results and unjust consequences.” Id. at 278 ; see also State v. Murphy, 545 N.W.2d 909, 916 (Minn.1996) (rejecting a narrow interpretation of the terroristic threats statute that would produce absurd results); State v. Campbell, 756 N.W.2d 263, 274 (Minn.App.2008), review denied (Dec. 23, 2008) (rejecting interpretation of statute criminalizing failure to use financial resources of vulnerable adult to care for adult that would create absurd result).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Perez-Rodriguez
See State v. Campbell, 756 N.W.2d 263, 270-72 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008) (upholding breach of fiduciary obligation where statute was admittedly broad and a factual determination based on numerous factors was necessary, noting that “[a]lthough the determination requires a judgment call, it is not so inherently elusive that it is not reasonably ascertainable or that it cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt”).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Disciplinary Action Against Fett
See State v. Campbell, 756 N.W.2d 263, 267 (Minn.App.2008), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 23, 2008).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joshua J. ISRAEL, Relator,
v.
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Companies, Respondents, and St. Francis Hospital, MN Department of Employment and Economic Development, Intervenors
v.
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Companies, Respondents, and St. Francis Hospital, MN Department of Employment and Economic Development, Intervenors
A08-1013.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Oct 3, 2008.
Joshua J. Israel, Pro Se., Janet Monson, Aafedt, Forde, Gray, Monson & Hager, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.
Dietzen.
Published
ORDER
Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed May 29, 2008, be, and the same is, affirmed without opinion. See Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn.1982) (explaining that “[s]ummary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view,” doing no more than establishing the law of the case). We further conclude that relator’s constitutional claims lack merit.
BY THE COURT
Christopher J. Dietzen Associate Justice