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.
16 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2026 3 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 Petition for Reinstatement of Dedefogreen2 sentences2025Id. at 247–48; see also In re Dedefo, 781 N.W.2d 1, 9 (Minn. 2010) (“[W]e examine a petitioner’s conduct up to the time of the reinstatement hearing and his or her mental state and values at that time.”). 2025When evaluating moral change, “we examine a petitioner’s conduct up to the time of the reinstatement hearing and his or her mental state and values at that time.” Dedefo, 781 N.W.2d at 9 . | 4 | 4 |
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Holkergreen2 sentences2023Given the several-year-delay between the referee’s findings and the reinstatement hearing, the panel appropriately evaluated and determined Klotz’s present-day remorse at the time of the reinstatement hearing. 6 Director as an “accounting mistake.” See In re Holker, 765 N.W.2d 633, 638 (Minn. 2009) (finding that because the petitioner had minimized his misconduct, his showing of remorse was not credible). 2010See, e.g., Holker, 765 N.W.2d at 637-39 (denying petition for reinstatement based on .the content of the petitioner’s testimony at the reinstatement hearing); Anderley, 696 N.W.2d at 385-86 (reinstating an attorney largely because of the dramatic rehabilitation and character change he had undergone during the period of time following his discipline). | 2 | 2 |
In re Seversongreen1 sentence2025Determining whether an attorney petitioning for reinstatement has proven moral change requires a holistic assessment, see In re Severson (Severson II), 923 N.W.2d 23, 30 (Minn. 2019), of the attorney’s conduct during “the time period near the reinstatement hearing,” Trombley, 947 N.W.2d at 248. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Selmergreen1 sentence2016When, as here, a petitioner orders a transcript of a reinstatement hearing, “the panel’s findings ‘are not binding on this court.’ ” In re Mose, 754 N.W.2d 357, 360 (Minn.2008) (quoting In re Selmer, 749 N.W.2d 30, 35 (Minn.2008)); see also Rule 14(e), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Petition for Reinstatement of Mosegreen2 sentences2016When, as here, a petitioner orders a transcript of a reinstatement hearing, “the panel’s findings ‘are not binding on this court.’ ” In re Mose, 754 N.W.2d 357, 360 (Minn.2008) (quoting In re Selmer, 749 N.W.2d 30, 35 (Minn.2008)); see also Rule 14(e), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility. 2016After independently reviewing the record, we “will uphold the panel’s factual findings if they have, evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous.” Mose, 754 N.W.2d at 360 . | 1 | 1 |
Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Agriculturegreen1 sentence2013Cf. Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. Minn. Dep’t of Agric., 528 N.W.2d 903, 907-08 (Minn.App.1995) (providing that an administrative action is arbitrary or capricious if the agency relied on factors that the legislature did not intend it to consider), review denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 1995). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of Anderleygreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., Holker, 765 N.W.2d at 637-39 (denying petition for reinstatement based on .the content of the petitioner’s testimony at the reinstatement hearing); Anderley, 696 N.W.2d at 385-86 (reinstating an attorney largely because of the dramatic rehabilitation and character change he had undergone during the period of time following his discipline). | 1 | 1 |
Winchester v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen1 sentence1983The difference in the two hearings is that the state has the burden of going forward in a § 169.123 proceeding, whereas in a § 171.19 proceeding, the petitioner's license has been revoked and therefore he has the burden of showing error to entitle reinstatement. 279 N.W.2d at 821 ; accord Winchester v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 306 N.W.2d 899 (Minn.1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cookgreen2 sentences1979See, also, State v. Cook, 275 Minn. 571 , 148 N.W.2d 368 (1967), where this court stated that a revocation under Minn.St. c. 170 could be challenged in a reinstatement hearing under § 171.19. 1979See, also, State v. Cook, 275 Minn. 571 , 148 N.W.2d 368 (1967), where this court stated that a revocation under Minn.St. c. 170 could be challenged in a reinstatement hearing under § 171.19. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Reinstatement of Mose
green
1 sentence2023Id. (holding that a suspended attorney did not need to have a job available to prove he had an adequate plan to return to the practice of law). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Reinstatement of Singer
green
1 sentence2013Indeed, "moral change is a central focus of the reinstatement inquiry.” Id. . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Reinstatement of Jellinger
green
1 sentence2008We have said that moral change is a central focus of the reinstatement inquiry, but it is only one factor. *361 Jellinger, 728 N.W.2d at 922 ; Kadrie, 602 N.W.2d at 870 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Willhite v. Collins
neutral
1 sentence2008Respondent admits his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, waives his procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and has entered into a stipulation with the Director under which they jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a four-month suspension pursuant to Rule 15, RLPR; that the reinstatement hearing provided for in Rule 18, RLPR, not be waived; that respondent may petition for reinstatement at any time after 60 days from the effective date of his suspension; and that reinstatement be conditioned upon: (1) payment of cos | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of Kadrie
green
1 sentence2008We have said that moral change is a central focus of the reinstatement inquiry, but it is only one factor. *361 Jellinger, 728 N.W.2d at 922 ; Kadrie, 602 N.W.2d at 870 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Moore
green
1 sentence2006Respondent stipulates the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are conclusive, waives briefing and oral argument before this court, and has entered into a stipulation with the Director in which they jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is suspension from the practice of law for 90 days under Rule 15, RLPR, effective 14 days from the date of the court’s suspension order, subject to the following conditions: (1) The reinstatement hearing provided for in Rule 18, RLPR, is waived. (2) Respondent shall successfully complete the professional responsibility portion of the st | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Jambor
neutral
1 sentence2005Following reinstatement, respondent shall be placed on supervised probation for two years subject to the terms of probation set forth in In re Jambor, 598 N.W.2d 690 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Leino
green
1 sentence2002The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a two-year suspension to run consecutively to the minimum three-year suspension ordered by this court in In re Disciplinary Action Against Leino, 609 N.W.2d 616 (Minn.2000), with no waiver of the reinstatement hearing provided for in Rule 18, RLPR, and no right to petition for reinstatement prior to March 2, 2005. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Independent School District No. 697 v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1994Paul had a duty to defend a reinstatement claim brought against the district which did not seek money damages. 495 N.W.2d 863 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
McIntee v. State, Department of Public Safety
green
1 sentence1983The difference in the two hearings is that the state has the burden of going forward in a § 169.123 proceeding, whereas in a § 171.19 proceeding, the petitioner's license has been revoked and therefore he has the burden of showing error to entitle reinstatement. 279 N.W.2d at 821 ; accord Winchester v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 306 N.W.2d 899 (Minn.1981). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
LeCLAIRE v. Hoaglund
green
2 sentences1979Any defenses that he might have to either the proper notice or the charge as a ground for the revocation itself could be brought forth in the hearing in district court.” The case of LeClaire v. Hoaglund, 296 Minn. 85 , 208 N.W.2d 90 (1973), also indicates that a person is entitled to petition for a full reinstatement hearing on the merits even though the person had his license revoked for a DWI-related offense. 1979Any defenses that he might have to either the proper notice or the charge as a ground for the revocation itself could be brought forth in the hearing in district court.” The case of LeClaire v. Hoaglund, 296 Minn. 85 , 208 N.W.2d 90 (1973), also indicates that a person is entitled to petition for a full reinstatement hearing on the merits even though the person had his license revoked for a DWI-related offense. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.