Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfieldgreen2 sentences2001The general principles for determining whether an ordinance conflicts with state law are these: (a) Generally, conflict occurs when “the ordinance and the statute contain express or implied terms that are irreconcilable”; (b) more specifically, an ordinance conflicts with state law if it “permits what the statute forbids”; (c) similarly, there is conflict if the ordinance “forbids what the statute expressly permits”; and (d) “no conflict exists where the ordinance, though different, is merely additional and complementary to or in aid and furtherance of the statute.” Mangold Midwest Co. v. Vill 2001The general principles for determining whether an ordinance conflicts with state law are these: (a) Generally, conflict occurs when “the ordinance and the statute contain express or implied terms that are irreconcilable”; (b) more specifically, an ordinance conflicts with state law if it “permits what the statute forbids”; (c) similarly, there is conflict if the ordinance “forbids what the statute expressly permits”; and (d) “no conflict exists where the ordinance, though different, is merely additional and complementary to or in aid and furtherance of the statute.” Mangold Midwest Co. v. Vill | 2 | 2 |
Danielson v. National Supply Co.green2 sentences2009Danielson, 670 N.W.2d at 5 (citations and quotation omitted); see also Schumacher, 676 N.W.2d at 689-90 (proceeding from a determination of whether there is a conflict to an analysis of whether the law is procedural or substantive). 2009Danielson, 670 N.W.2d at 5 (citations and quotation omitted); see also Schumacher, 676 N.W.2d at 689-90 (proceeding from a determination of whether there is a conflict to an analysis of whether the law is procedural or substantive). | 1 | 1 |
Schumacher v. Schumachergreen2 sentences2009Danielson, 670 N.W.2d at 5 (citations and quotation omitted); see also Schumacher, 676 N.W.2d at 689-90 (proceeding from a determination of whether there is a conflict to an analysis of whether the law is procedural or substantive). 2009Danielson, 670 N.W.2d at 5 (citations and quotation omitted); see also Schumacher, 676 N.W.2d at 689-90 (proceeding from a determination of whether there is a conflict to an analysis of whether the law is procedural or substantive). | 1 | 1 |
Liebsch v. Abbottgreen2 sentences1990See Liebsch v. Abbott, 265 Minn. 447, 457 , 122 N.W.2d 578, 585 (1963) (if the trial court’s decision is correct, the appellate court can sustain it for a different reason). 1990See Liebsch v. Abbott, 265 Minn. 447, 457 , 122 N.W.2d 578, 585 (1963) (if the trial court’s decision is correct, the appellate court can sustain it for a different reason). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Apple Valley Redi-Mix, Inc.green1 sentence1990See Apple Valley Redi-Mix, 379 N.W.2d at 138 (applying conflict doctrine to Minn.Stat. § 116.07, subd. 2 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights
green
2 sentences2016Aside from creating a conflict with the rule from County of Washington, 818 N.W.2d at 542 , a long line of cases casts doubt on the concurrence’s proposed rule.4 In Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11, for example, we concluded that the 4 The concurrence criticizes us for failing to adopt Meldahl’s “separate and distinct” test, which it says we “have already adopted.” We disagree. 2016Aside from creating a conflict with the rule from County of Washington, 818 N.W.2d at 542 , a long line of cases casts doubt on the concurrence’s proposed rule. 4 In Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11, for example, we concluded that the “only method of appealing” a school board’s decision to deny a teacher’s reinstatement request was “by writ of certiorari.” 459 N.W.2d at 673 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11
green
1 sentence2016Aside from creating a conflict with the rule from County of Washington, 818 N.W.2d at 542 , a long line of cases casts doubt on the concurrence’s proposed rule. 4 In Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11, for example, we concluded that the “only method of appealing” a school board’s decision to deny a teacher’s reinstatement request was “by writ of certiorari.” 459 N.W.2d at 673 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.