35 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1901–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCannel v. County of Hennepingreen2 sentences2025Id. at *6. 3 When a taxpayer challenges a county’s valuation of real property by filing a petition in the tax court, see Minn. Stat. § 278.01 (2024), there is a prima facie presumption that the assessor’s valuation was proper, and “the burden is on the party appealing that assessment to show that it is excessive.” S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop v. County of Renville, 737 N.W.2d 545, 558 (Minn. 2007) (citing In re McCannel, 301 N.W.2d 910, 923 (Minn. 1980)); see also Minn. Stat. § 271.06 , subd. 6 (2024). 7 The tax court also rejected one aspect of Hornig’s valuation of the subject property under the 2016When a taxpayer challenges a property assessment, “there is a prima facie presumption that the assessor’s valuation is proper, and the taxpayer has the burden of proving that the assessment is excessive.” S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop. v. Cty. of Renville, 737 N.W.2d 645, 568 (Minn.2007) (quoting In re McCannel, 301 N.W.2d 910, 923 (Minn.1980)). | 5 | 5 |
Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop v. County of Renvillegreen1 sentence2025Id. at *6. 3 When a taxpayer challenges a county’s valuation of real property by filing a petition in the tax court, see Minn. Stat. § 278.01 (2024), there is a prima facie presumption that the assessor’s valuation was proper, and “the burden is on the party appealing that assessment to show that it is excessive.” S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop v. County of Renville, 737 N.W.2d 545, 558 (Minn. 2007) (citing In re McCannel, 301 N.W.2d 910, 923 (Minn. 1980)); see also Minn. Stat. § 271.06 , subd. 6 (2024). 7 The tax court also rejected one aspect of Hornig’s valuation of the subject property under the | 1 | 1 |
Randolph v. Rodgersgreen1 sentence2023Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 858 (8th Cir. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.green1 sentence2014To establish a prima facie claim of legal malpractice “not involving damage to or loss of a cause of action,” the plaintiff must prove each of the following four elements: “(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages; and (4) that but for defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., 711 N.W.2d 811, 816, 819 (Minn. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Howard v. Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball Ltd. Partnershipgreen1 sentence2012P’ship, 636 N.W.2d 551, 559 (Minn.App.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Schleiff v. County of Freeborngreen1 sentence2007McCannel, 301 N.W.2d at 923 (“In a proceeding brought by a taxpayer to challenge a property valuation, there is a prima facie presumption that the assessor’s valuation is proper, and the taxpayer has the burden of proving that the assessment is excessive.”); Schleiff , 231 Minn, at 395-99, 43 N.W.2d at 269 (describing “the assessor’s valuation [as] prima facie valid” and noting that “the burden rest[s] upon the taxpayer to prove that it is excessive”). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 691106green1 sentence2001Cram v. Lamson & Sessions Co., 49 F.3d 466, 473 (8th Cir.1995) (citation omitted); Grozdanich v. Leisure Hills Health Ctr., Inc., 25 F.Supp.2d 953, 966 (D.Minn.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Grozdanich v. Leisure Hills Health Center, Inc.green1 sentence2001Cram v. Lamson & Sessions Co., 49 F.3d 466, 473 (8th Cir.1995) (citation omitted); Grozdanich v. Leisure Hills Health Ctr., Inc., 25 F.Supp.2d 953, 966 (D.Minn.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co.green2 sentences1995As to the third requirement— that plaintiff was discharged despite her qualifications — the trial court, citing Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co., 250 Minn. 167 , 84 N.W.2d 593, 597 (1957), found that plaintiff was not “discharged” because she was placed on furlough status. 1995As to the third requirement— that plaintiff was discharged despite her qualifications — the trial court, citing Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co., 250 Minn. 167 , 84 N.W.2d 593, 597 (1957), found that plaintiff was not “discharged” because she was placed on furlough status. | 1 | 1 |
Sigurdson v. Isanti Countygreen1 sentence1995McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13, 93 S.Ct. at 1824 n. 13; see also Sigurdson, 386 N.W.2d at 720 . | 1 | 1 |
Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.green2 sentences1993See Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 330 N.W.2d 428, 442 (Minn.1983). 1993See Hubbard v. United Press Int'l, Inc., 330 N.W.2d 428, 442 (Minn.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. Inc.green2 sentences1992See Dain Bosworth Inc. v. Goetze, 374 N.W.2d 467, 471 (Minn.App.1985) (citing Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 317 , 32 N.W.2d 649, 650 (1948)). 1992See Dain Bosworth Inc. v. Goetze, 374 N.W.2d 467, 471 (Minn.App.1985) (citing Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 317 , 32 N.W.2d 649, 650 (1948)). | 1 | 1 |
Dain Bosworth Inc. v. Goetzegreen1 sentence1992See Dain Bosworth Inc. v. Goetze, 374 N.W.2d 467, 471 (Minn.App.1985) (citing Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 226 Minn. 315, 317 , 32 N.W.2d 649, 650 (1948)). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Roberts v. Sports & Health Club, Inc.green1 sentence1988See State by Roberts v. Sports & Health Club, Inc., 365 N.W.2d 799 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (this court assumed that the male plaintiff had proven a prima facie case, and membership in a protected class was not at issue, and held that the employer had legitimate non-pretextual reasons for not hiring plaintiff); Johnson v. Ramsey County, 424 N.W.2d 800, 808 (Minn.Ct.App.1988) (this court recognized that the male employee’s membership in a protected group was the first element of his prima facie claim of sexual harassment under the MHRA, chapter 363). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Ramsey Countygreen1 sentence1988See State by Roberts v. Sports & Health Club, Inc., 365 N.W.2d 799 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (this court assumed that the male plaintiff had proven a prima facie case, and membership in a protected class was not at issue, and held that the employer had legitimate non-pretextual reasons for not hiring plaintiff); Johnson v. Ramsey County, 424 N.W.2d 800, 808 (Minn.Ct.App.1988) (this court recognized that the male employee’s membership in a protected group was the first element of his prima facie claim of sexual harassment under the MHRA, chapter 363). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Repsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District
green
2 sentences2014Abrahamson, 819 N.W.2d at 130 . 2014Abrahamson, 819 N.W.2d at 130 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Hansen v. Robert Half International, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024Id. 5 The district court here found that respondents “are not disputing that [appellant] is a member of a protected class under the MHRA.” But the district court determined that appellant could not satisfy the second prong of the prima facie analysis because appellant “was unqualified to perform the essential functions of [his] position.” The district court then stated that its determinations that appellant “was no longer qualified for the position” are “dispositive of the issue of age and disability discrimination” and, therefore, it “decline[d] to address whether [appellant] was replaced by | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rion v. Rion's Syndics
neutral
1 sentence2024Here, however, the State’s report simply disagreed with the conclusions reached by the psychologist, and the place for that argument is during the competency phase of the trial, not during the determination of whether Hinckley has met the prima facie standard. 11 the defendant and the State, are considered by the jury following the first phase of the trial. 2 Martin, 591 N.W.2d at 487 (noting that the jury is entrusted with determining mental capacity). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2014It then noted that, “in a community in which African-Americans make up only 3.7% of the population, a defendant could never meet the second part of the prima facie test if [only] the absolute disparity approach is used.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Education Minnesota-Greenway, Local 1330 v. Independent School District No. 316
green
1 sentence2006Greenway, 673 N.W.2d at 849 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Britton v. Koep
green
1 sentence2003New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. 710 ; Britton, 470 N.W.2d at 520 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2003New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. 710 ; Britton, 470 N.W.2d at 520 . 2003New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. 710 ; Britton, 470 N.W.2d at 520 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Costilla v. State
green
1 sentence2001Minn.Stat. § 363.01, subd. 41(3); Costilla, 571 N.W.2d at 595 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
green
2 sentences1995McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13, 93 S.Ct. at 1824 n. 13; see also Sigurdson, 386 N.W.2d at 720 . 1995McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13, 93 S.Ct. at 1824 n. 13; see also Sigurdson, 386 N.W.2d at 720 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Duren v. Missouri
green
2 sentences1994Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 , 99 S.Ct. 664, 668 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979). 1994Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 , 99 S.Ct. 664, 668 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kraft, Inc. v. State
green
2 sentences1990The majority ignores the holdings in Kraft, Inc. v. State, 284 N.W.2d 386 (Minn. 1979), Sports & Health Club, Mower County, and Porter Farms, relying instead on Mister v. A.R.K. 1990The majority ignores the holdings in Kraft, Inc. v. State, 284 N.W.2d 386 (Minn. 1979), Sports & Health Club, Mower County, and Porter Farms, relying instead on Mister v. A.R.K. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Ross
green
2 sentences1981State v. Ross, 259 Wis. 379 , 48 N.W.2d 460 (1951). 1981State v. Ross, 259 Wis. 379 , 48 N.W.2d 460 (1951). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Fridley Recreation & Service Company
green
2 sentences1980State v. Fridley Recreation & Service Co., 288 Minn. 218 , 179 N.W.2d 172 (1970); Red Owl Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 264 Minn. 1 , 117 N.W.2d 401 (1962). 1980State v. Fridley Recreation & Service Co., 288 Minn. 218 , 179 N.W.2d 172 (1970); Red Owl Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 264 Minn. 1 , 117 N.W.2d 401 (1962). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Red Owl Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation
green
2 sentences1980State v. Fridley Recreation & Service Co., 288 Minn. 218 , 179 N.W.2d 172 (1970); Red Owl Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 264 Minn. 1 , 117 N.W.2d 401 (1962). 1980State v. Fridley Recreation & Service Co., 288 Minn. 218 , 179 N.W.2d 172 (1970); Red Owl Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 264 Minn. 1 , 117 N.W.2d 401 (1962). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Ruskamp v. Ferknes
green
1 sentence1978Furuseth was an attorney at law admitted to practice in the State of Minnesota until the order of this court of January 5, 1978, 261 N.W.2d 612 , suspending him indefinitely; and that the parties have entered into a stipulation whereby Mr. Furuseth accepts the findings of Referee Foley that he has engaged in conduct which violates DR 1-102(A)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6), DR 6-101(A)(1) and (3), DR 7-106(C)(6), and DR 9-102(B)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and which constitutes a prima facie violation of Minn.St. 609.52(2)(5)(a) in connection with Minn.St. 609.52(2)(1); And i | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Satter v. Turner green | 1 | 1958–1958 |
| Johnson v. Munsingwear, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| Meadowcroft v. People green | 1 | 1944–1944 |
| Hersey v. Long neutral | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Hayden v. Lundgren neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Mechler v. McMahon green | 1 | 1935–1935 |
| Graves v. Horton neutral | 1 | 1920–1920 |
| Jones v. New York Life Insurance neutral | 1 | 1910–1910 |
| Tuskaloosa Cotton-Seed Oil Co. v. Perry green | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.