Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Jagger Crawford
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Like the supreme court, we have held that “In the absence of express authorization by the legislature, a district court is without authority to disregard a statutory mandatory- minimum sentence.” State v. Rausch, 799 N.W.2d 19, 20 (Minn. App. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Perry
But “[a] criminal sentence that is contrary to the requirements of the applicable sentencing statute is unauthorized by law,” State v. Rausch, 799 N.W.2d 19, 21 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted), and “courts are empowered ‘at any time’ to correct sentences not authorized by law,” Spann v. State, 740 N.W.2d 570, 573 (Minn. 2007) (quoting Minn. R.
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente
See State v. Rausch, 799 N.W.2d 19, 20 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating in syllabus that “[i]n the absence of express authorization by the legislature, a district court is without authority to disregard a statutory mandatory-minimum sentence”); cf. State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13, 18 (Minn. 1982) (stating that “the legislature may restrict the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing . . . by providing for mandatory sentences”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In the Matter of the Decision to Deny the Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing and to Submit the Draft Little Rock Creek Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate, Temperature, and Fish Bioassessment Total Maximum Daily Load Study to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Approval.
See, e.g., State v. Rausch, 799 N.W.2d 19, 23 (Minn. App. 2011) (advising that statutory language that is not “subdivided or separated” should be read as a whole) (citing Munger v. State, 749 N.W.2d 335, 338 (Minn. 2008) (stating that under “normal rules of grammatical construction,” a statute’s several parts will be interpreted separately when signified by a disjunctive conjunction or separated by a comma)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mary Ann MILLER
v.
ST. MARY'S REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER, n/k/a St. Mary's Innovis Health, Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, L.L.C., Relator, and Meritcare Health System, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Progressive Preferred, and Madison National Life Insurance Company, Intervenors
v.
ST. MARY'S REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER, n/k/a St. Mary's Innovis Health, Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, L.L.C., Relator, and Meritcare Health System, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Progressive Preferred, and Madison National Life Insurance Company, Intervenors
No. A11-475.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Jun 29, 2011.
Edward Q. Cassidy, Lori-Ann C. Jones, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for relator., Jeffrey R. Hannig, Hannig & Associates, P.A., Fargo, North Dakota, for respondent.
Alan.
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 February 14, 2011, be, and the same is, affirmed without opinion. See Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn.1982) (explaining that [sjummary affirmances have no prece-dential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view, doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Employee is awarded $1,200 in attorney fees.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Alan C. Page Associate Justice