5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Complaint Against the Sandy Pappas Senate Committeegreen1 sentence2007See In re Sandy Pappas Senate Comm., 488 N.W.2d 795, 798 (Minn.1992) (finding that a citizen did not have standing solely as a taxpayer to file a claim seeking judicial review of an election board’s disposition of a campaign violation). | 1 | 1 |
Rehn v. Fischleygreen1 sentence1997Rehn v. Fischley, 557 N.W.2d 328, 333 (Minn.1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
green
1 sentence2017Gams, 884 N.W.2d at 620 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Gerber v. Neveaux
green
1 sentence2002The party seeking immunity must “demonstrate facts showing that it is entitled to immunity.” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Steinke v. City of Andover
green
2 sentences2000Such a minimal showing is also troubling because it conflicts with this court’s precedent that statutory immunity should be narrowly construed, see Angell, 578 N.W.2d at 346 , and that the party seeking immunity has the burden of proof, see Steinke, 525 N.W.2d at 175 . 2000Such a minimal showing is also troubling because it conflicts with this court's precedent that statutory immunity should be narrowly construed, see Angell, 578 N.W.2d at 346 , and that the party seeking immunity has the burden of proof, see Steinke, 525 N.W.2d at 175 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Angell v. Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority
green
2 sentences2000Such a minimal showing is also troubling because it conflicts with this court’s precedent that statutory immunity should be narrowly construed, see Angell, 578 N.W.2d at 346 , and that the party seeking immunity has the burden of proof, see Steinke, 525 N.W.2d at 175 . 2000Such a minimal showing is also troubling because it conflicts with this court's precedent that statutory immunity should be narrowly construed, see Angell, 578 N.W.2d at 346 , and that the party seeking immunity has the burden of proof, see Steinke, 525 N.W.2d at 175 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.