In Re Disciplinary Action Against Oldenkamp, 403 N.W.2d 617 (Minn. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Oldenkamp, 403 N.W.2d 617 (Minn. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. County of Hennepin (minn, 2011-05-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. County of Hennepin
Minn. · 2011 · confidence medium
Our deferential review is rooted in separation of powers principles, cf. Lund v. Hennepin Cnty., 403 N.W.2d 617, 624 (Minn.1987) (Yetka, J., dissenting) (noting that the legislative branch has the power to tax and appropriate money), and the inexact nature of the appraisal of real property, EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 723 N.W.2d 270, 285 (Minn.2006).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Minnesota Automatic Merchandising Council v. Salomone
Minn. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Ruberto v. County of Washington, 572 N.W.2d 293, 299 (Minn.1997) (upholding a statutory process that determined payback taxes by taking into account whether the property had any nonagricultural characteristics); Lund v. Hennepin County, 403 N.W.2d 617, 620 (Minn.1987) (upholding distinction between owners and renters in property tax classification); Erie Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 343 N.W.2d 261, 269 (Minn.1984) (upholding two classifications of taconite property taxpayers); Hegenes v. State, 328 N.W.2d at 719, 722-23 (Minn.1983) (upholding as constitutional the classification of n…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Community Memorial Home at Osakis, Minnesota, Inc. v. County of Douglas
Minn. · 1997 · confidence medium
The Uniformity Clause found in Article Ten, Section One of the Minnesota Constitution provides that “[t]axes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects.” “We have determined that the state [U]niformity [C]lause is no more restrictive upon the state legislature’s power to tax or classify than the federal [E]qual [P]ro-tection [C]lause, and that an analysis under equal protection is applicable to the state constitutional challenge.” Lund v. County of Hennepin, 403 N.W.2d 617, 619 (Minn.1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kuiters v. County of Freeborn
Minn. · 1988 · confidence medium
Lund v. Hennepin County, 403 N.W.2d 617, 619 (Minn.1987), appeal dismissed, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 50 , 98 L.Ed.2d 15 (1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Roger L. OLDENKAMP, Respondent
C2-85-1329.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Mar 26, 1987.
403 N.W.2d 617
1987 Minn. LEXIS 914
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

ORDER

WHEREAS, a petition and supplemental petitions for disciplinary action against Roger L. Oldenkamp have been pending in this court since June 24, 1985; and

WHEREAS, by order filed on October 31, 1985, this court directed the immediate transfer of the respondent to disability inactive status as an attorney in accordance with the respondent’s request and Rule 28(b)(2), Minn.R.Law.Prof.Resp.; and

WHEREAS, upon motion of the Director, Lawyers Professional Responsibility, this court by order filed on October 7, 1986, remanded the matter to the referee with instructions to determine whether the disability continues or whether the hearing on the several petitions for disciplinary action shall proceed; and

WHEREAS, the referee filed his findings and recommendation that the respondent be removed from disability inactive status and be immediately suspended from the practice of law pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings; and

WHEREAS, on March 4, 1987, this court conducted a hearing en banc on the order to show cause filed on January 29, 1987; and

WHEREAS, Minn.R.Law.Prof.Resp. 28(c)(1) provides that in proceedings to transfer a lawyer from disability inactive status counsel shall be appointed to represent the lawyer if he does not retain counsel; and

WHEREAS, the respondent was not represented by a lawyer at the hearing on March 4, 1987, and counsel was not appointed to represent him;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this court declines to direct the respondent’s removal from disability inactive status at this time.