22 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc.green2 sentences2015The purpose of the standing requirement is to ensure that issues before the courts will be “vigorously and adequately presented.” State by Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 551 N.W.2d 490, 493 (Minn.1996) (quotation omitted). 2015The purpose of the standing requirement is to ensure that issues before the courts will be “vigorously and adequately presented.” State by Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 551 N.W.2d 490, 493 (Minn. 1996) (quotation omitted). | 3 | 5 |
Twin Ports Convalescent, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Healthgreen2 sentences1997See Twin Ports Convalescent, Inc. v. Minnesota State Bd. of Health, 257 N.W.2d 343, 346 (Minn.1977) (purpose of standing doctrine is to guarantee sufficient controversy between parties, so that issues may be properly presented to court). . 1985The purpose of the doctrine of standing, however, is to “guarantee that there is a sufficient case or controversy between the parties so that the issue is properly and competently presented to the court.” Twin Ports Convalescent, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Health, 257 N.W.2d 343, 346 (Minn.1977) (quoting Minnesota State Board of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24, 30 , 241 N.W.2d 624, 628 (1976)). | 3 | 3 |
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Allina Health Systemgreen2 sentences2016Hatch v. Allina Health Sys., 679 N.W.2d 400, 404 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotation omitted). 2016Hatch v. Allina Health Sys., 679 N.W.2d 400, 404 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Blockgreen1 sentence2016In re Block, 727 N.W.2d 166, 174 (Minn. App. 2007) (“The entity seeking standing must have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court, and the goal of this requirement is to ensure that issues before the courts will be vigorously and adequately presented.” (quotations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc.green1 sentence2015“A plaintiff may have standing in two ways: either the plaintiff has suffered some ‘injury-in- fact’ or the plaintiff is the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.” Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc., 846 N.W.2d 424, 429 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Daniel Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, Vin 1GNEC13V23R143453, Plate 235JBMgreen1 sentence2015“The standing doctrine requires that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.” Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, 852 N.W.2d 659, 663 (Minn. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Lorix v. Crompton Corp.green1 sentence2014See Lorix v. Crompton Corp., 736 N.W.2d 619, 624 (Minn. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
McCaughtry v. City of Red Winggreen1 sentence2014Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731-32 , 92 S.Ct. 1361 , 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972); see also McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing, 808 N.W.2d 331, 338 (Minn.2011); In re D.T.R., 796 N.W.2d at 512 . | 1 | 1 |
Olson v. Stategreen2 sentences2014“When the facts relevant to standing are undisputed, the standing inquiry raises a question of law subject to de novo review.” Olson v. State, 742 N.W.2d 681, 684 (Minn. App. 2007). 2014“To establish standing, a plaintiff must have sufficient personal stake in a justiciable controversy.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Rukavina v. Pawlentygreen2 sentences2007Rukavina v. Pawlenty, 684 N.W.2d 525, 531 (Minn.App.2004), review denied (Minn. Oct. 19, 2004). 2007Id. | 1 | 1 |
Minnesota v. Cartergreen2 sentences1999See 569 N.W.2d at 174-76 (discussing standing under the Fourth Amendment); see also Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 , 119 S.Ct. 469 , 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (reversing on the Carter court’s standing analysis under the Fourth Amendment). 1999See 569 N.W.2d at 174-76 (discussing standing under the Fourth Amendment); see also Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 , 119 S.Ct. 469 , 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (reversing on the Carter court’s standing analysis under the Fourth Amendment). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen1 sentence1999See 569 N.W.2d at 174-76 (discussing standing under the Fourth Amendment); see also Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 , 119 S.Ct. 469 , 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (reversing on the Carter court’s standing analysis under the Fourth Amendment). | 1 | 1 |
Cummins v. Redmangreen1 sentence1994The purpose of the standing doctrine is “to guarantee that there is a sufficient case or controversy between the parties so that the issue is properly and competently presented to the court.” Twin Ports Convalescent v. Minnesota State Bd. of Health, 251 N.W.2d 343, 346 (Minn.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Meadowbrook Women's Clinic, P.A. v. Minnesotagreen1 sentence1990Under the standing requirement, a party must show “that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant” and that the injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action” and “is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Meadowbrook Women’s Clinic, P.A. v. State of Minnesota, 557 F.Supp. 1172, 1174 (D.Minn.1983) (quoting Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 , 102 S.Ct. 752 , 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982)). | 1 | 1 |
Minn. State Bd. of Health v. City of Brainerdgreen2 sentences1985The purpose of the doctrine of standing, however, is to “guarantee that there is a sufficient case or controversy between the parties so that the issue is properly and competently presented to the court.” Twin Ports Convalescent, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Health, 257 N.W.2d 343, 346 (Minn.1977) (quoting Minnesota State Board of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24, 30 , 241 N.W.2d 624, 628 (1976)). 1985The purpose of the doctrine of standing, however, is to “guarantee that there is a sufficient case or controversy between the parties so that the issue is properly and competently presented to the court.” Twin Ports Convalescent, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Health, 257 N.W.2d 343, 346 (Minn.1977) (quoting Minnesota State Board of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24, 30 , 241 N.W.2d 624, 628 (1976)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hippgreen2 sentences1981Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 634 , 100 S.Ct. 826, 834 , 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 379-80 , 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2706-07 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977); State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 86-87 , 213 N.W.2d 610, 614 (1973). 1981Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 634 , 100 S.Ct. 826, 834 , 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 379-80 , 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2706-07 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977); State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 86-87 , 213 N.W.2d 610, 614 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sierra Club v. Morton
green
2 sentences2014Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731-32 , 92 S.Ct. 1361 , 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972); see also McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing, 808 N.W.2d 331, 338 (Minn.2011); In re D.T.R., 796 N.W.2d at 512 . 2014Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731-32 , 92 S.Ct. 1361 , 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972); see also McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing, 808 N.W.2d 331, 338 (Minn.2011); In re D.T.R., 796 N.W.2d at 512 . | 2 | 1976–2014 |
State Ex Rel. Sviggum v. Hanson
green
2 sentences2015“When a lawsuit presents no injury that a court can redress, the case must be dismissed for lack of justiciability.” Hanson, 732 N.W.2d at 321 . 2015“When a lawsuit presents no injury that a court can redress, the case must be dismissed for lack of justiciability.” Hanson, 732 N.W.2d at 321 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Richards v. Reiter
green
1 sentence2014Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731-32 , 92 S.Ct. 1361 , 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972); see also McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing, 808 N.W.2d 331, 338 (Minn.2011); In re D.T.R., 796 N.W.2d at 512 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Baker v. Carr
green
2 sentences2005The standing requirement ensures that a potential litigant has “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure th[e] concrete adverseness [that] sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 , 82 S.Ct. 691, 703 , 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). 2005The standing requirement ensures that a potential litigant has “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure th[e] concrete adverseness [that] sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 , 82 S.Ct. 691, 703 , 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990Under the standing requirement, a party must show “that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant” and that the injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action” and “is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Meadowbrook Women’s Clinic, P.A. v. State of Minnesota, 557 F.Supp. 1172, 1174 (D.Minn.1983) (quoting Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 , 102 S.Ct. 752 , 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982)). 1990Under the standing requirement, a party must show “that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant” and that the injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action” and “is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Meadowbrook Women’s Clinic, P.A. v. State of Minnesota, 557 F.Supp. 1172, 1174 (D.Minn.1983) (quoting Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 , 102 S.Ct. 752 , 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982)). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
McKart v. United States
green
2 sentences1986Petitioners have exhausted their administrative remedies, see McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185 , 89 S.Ct. 1657 , 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969); their interests are within the “zone of interests” protected and regulated by the statute in question, see Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 , 90 S.Ct. 827, 829-30 , 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970); and finally, the procedural history of this case clearly reveals the commissioner’s position on the stacking issue and the parties’ fundamental disagreement on it. 1986Petitioners have exhausted their administrative remedies, see McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185 , 89 S.Ct. 1657 , 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969); their interests are within the “zone of interests” protected and regulated by the statute in question, see Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 , 90 S.Ct. 827, 829-30 , 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970); and finally, the procedural history of this case clearly reveals the commissioner’s position on the stacking issue and the parties’ fundamental disagreement on it. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
green
2 sentences1986Petitioners have exhausted their administrative remedies, see McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185 , 89 S.Ct. 1657 , 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969); their interests are within the “zone of interests” protected and regulated by the statute in question, see Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 , 90 S.Ct. 827, 829-30 , 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970); and finally, the procedural history of this case clearly reveals the commissioner’s position on the stacking issue and the parties’ fundamental disagreement on it. 1986Petitioners have exhausted their administrative remedies, see McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185 , 89 S.Ct. 1657 , 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969); their interests are within the “zone of interests” protected and regulated by the statute in question, see Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 , 90 S.Ct. 827, 829-30 , 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970); and finally, the procedural history of this case clearly reveals the commissioner’s position on the stacking issue and the parties’ fundamental disagreement on it. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona
green
2 sentences1981Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 634 , 100 S.Ct. 826, 834 , 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 379-80 , 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2706-07 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977); State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 86-87 , 213 N.W.2d 610, 614 (1973). 1981Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 634 , 100 S.Ct. 826, 834 , 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 379-80 , 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2706-07 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977); State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 86-87 , 213 N.W.2d 610, 614 (1973). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment
green
2 sentences1981Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 634 , 100 S.Ct. 826, 834 , 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 379-80 , 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2706-07 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977); State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 86-87 , 213 N.W.2d 610, 614 (1973). 1981Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 634 , 100 S.Ct. 826, 834 , 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 379-80 , 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2706-07 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977); State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 86-87 , 213 N.W.2d 610, 614 (1973). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Spotts v. Beebe
green
2 sentences1964Spotts v. Beebe, 148 Minn. 363 , 182 N. W. 167 . 5 Hendershot v. Ferkel, 144 Ohio St. 112 , 56 N. E. (2d) 205; State ex rel. 1964Spotts v. Beebe, 148 Minn. 363 , 182 N. W. 167 . 5 Hendershot v. Ferkel, 144 Ohio St. 112 , 56 N. E. (2d) 205; State ex rel. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Schilling v. Odlebak
green
2 sentences1964App. (2d) 23, 28, 126 N. E. (2d) 513, 516; Schilling v. Odlebak, 177 Minn. 90, 94 , 224 N. W. 694, 696 . 4 The garnishee’s standing to challenge jurisdiction over defendant is unquestioned. 1964App. (2d) 23, 28, 126 N. E. (2d) 513, 516; Schilling v. Odlebak, 177 Minn. 90, 94 , 224 N. W. 694, 696 . 4 The garnishee’s standing to challenge jurisdiction over defendant is unquestioned. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Hendershot v. Ferkel
green
1 sentence1964Spotts v. Beebe, 148 Minn. 363 , 182 N. W. 167 . 5 Hendershot v. Ferkel, 144 Ohio St. 112 , 56 N. E. (2d) 205; State ex rel. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.