13 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Moorhead v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commissiongreen2 sentences2004Comm’n, 343 N.W.2d 843, 846 (Minn.1984) ("We have consistently stressed the importance of agencies employing their expertise to reach independent decisions and not to simply 'rubber stamp' the findings of a hearing examiner.”). 2001Agencies must make their own “independent decisions and not * * * ‘rubber stamp’ the findings of a hearing examiner.” City of Moorhead, 343 N.W.2d at 846 . | 3 | 4 |
City of Minneapolis v. Richardsongreen2 sentences1987Gomez-Bethke v. Office of County Auditor, 347 N.W.2d 541, 542 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); see also City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 88 , 239 N.W.2d 197, 202 (1976). 1987Gomez-Bethke v. Office of County Auditor, 347 N.W.2d 541, 542 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); see also City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 88 , 239 N.W.2d 197, 202 (1976). | 3 | 3 |
Beaty v. Minnesota Board of Teachinggreen1 sentence1991Beaty v. Minnesota Board of Teaching, 354 N.W.2d 466, 472 (Minn.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence1991Following State v. Taylor, 427 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn.App.1988) pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1988), we remand for specific written findings on the charge of driving after revocation. 3. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Gomez-Bethke v. Office of County Auditor Ex Rel. Andersongreen1 sentence1987Gomez-Bethke v. Office of County Auditor, 347 N.W.2d 541, 542 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); see also City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 88 , 239 N.W.2d 197, 202 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
People for Environmental Enlightenment & Responsibility (PEER), Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Councilgreen1 sentence1984See, e.g., People for Environmental Enlightenment and Responsibility (PEER), Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council, 266 N.W.2d 858, 873 (Minn.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Madrigal v. Seeleygreen1 sentence1982See Madrigal v. Seeley, 281 N.W.2d 366 (Minn.1979); Spilman v. Morey Fish Co., 270 N.W.2d 781 (Minn.1978); Briggs v. McKee, Inc., 259 N.W.2d 266 (Minn.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Lefevre v. Stategreen2 sentences1952R. 611 (not error to refuse testimony of result of test made outside of court); LeFevre v. State, 242 Wis. 416 , 8 N. W. (2d) 288 3 (holding that where defendant and prosecuting attorney had entered into a stipulation that the findings of test could be used by either defendant or the state on trial the results of such test were properly excluded when offered by defendant); State v. Pusch, 77 N. D. 860 , 46 N. W. (2d) 508 (not error to refuse to admit results offered by defendant); People v. Forte, 279 N. Y. 204 , 18 N. E. (2d) 31, 119 A. L. 1952R. 611 (not error to refuse testimony of result of test made outside of court); LeFevre v. State, 242 Wis. 416 , 8 N. W. (2d) 288 3 (holding that where defendant and prosecuting attorney had entered into a stipulation that the findings of test could be used by either defendant or the state on trial the results of such test were properly excluded when offered by defendant); State v. Pusch, 77 N. D. 860 , 46 N. W. (2d) 508 (not error to refuse to admit results offered by defendant); People v. Forte, 279 N. Y. 204 , 18 N. E. (2d) 31, 119 A. L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. County of Nassau
green
1 sentence2016In addition, Hansmeier testified that the threshold height “was about one to two inches.” The district court’s finding that the patio entrance threshold height on November 20, 2013, was approximately two inches is not clearly erroneous.2 Because the evidence supports the district court’s findings that bar stools were blocking the patio entrance and that the patio entrance threshold height exceeded one-half inch, we conclude that the district court’s finding that Wong encountered architectural barriers on November 20, 2013, due to his disability is not clearly erroneous. 2 Sharpe argues that, e | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety
green
1 sentence2014In reviewing the district court’s findings for error, we cannot conclude that the district court erred in finding that Gumphrey’s “consent [was] given knowingly, freely, and voluntarily.” See Haase, 679 N.W.2d at 745 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Briggs v. K. W. McKee, Inc.
green
1 sentence1982See Madrigal v. Seeley, 281 N.W.2d 366 (Minn.1979); Spilman v. Morey Fish Co., 270 N.W.2d 781 (Minn.1978); Briggs v. McKee, Inc., 259 N.W.2d 266 (Minn.1977). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Spilman v. Morey Fish Co.
neutral
1 sentence1982See Madrigal v. Seeley, 281 N.W.2d 366 (Minn.1979); Spilman v. Morey Fish Co., 270 N.W.2d 781 (Minn.1978); Briggs v. McKee, Inc., 259 N.W.2d 266 (Minn.1977). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Forte
green
1 sentence1952R. 611 (not error to refuse testimony of result of test made outside of court); LeFevre v. State, 242 Wis. 416 , 8 N. W. (2d) 288 3 (holding that where defendant and prosecuting attorney had entered into a stipulation that the findings of test could be used by either defendant or the state on trial the results of such test were properly excluded when offered by defendant); State v. Pusch, 77 N. D. 860 , 46 N. W. (2d) 508 (not error to refuse to admit results offered by defendant); People v. Forte, 279 N. Y. 204 , 18 N. E. (2d) 31, 119 A. L. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
State v. Pusch
green
2 sentences1952R. 611 (not error to refuse testimony of result of test made outside of court); LeFevre v. State, 242 Wis. 416 , 8 N. W. (2d) 288 3 (holding that where defendant and prosecuting attorney had entered into a stipulation that the findings of test could be used by either defendant or the state on trial the results of such test were properly excluded when offered by defendant); State v. Pusch, 77 N. D. 860 , 46 N. W. (2d) 508 (not error to refuse to admit results offered by defendant); People v. Forte, 279 N. Y. 204 , 18 N. E. (2d) 31, 119 A. L. 1952R. 611 (not error to refuse testimony of result of test made outside of court); LeFevre v. State, 242 Wis. 416 , 8 N. W. (2d) 288 3 (holding that where defendant and prosecuting attorney had entered into a stipulation that the findings of test could be used by either defendant or the state on trial the results of such test were properly excluded when offered by defendant); State v. Pusch, 77 N. D. 860 , 46 N. W. (2d) 508 (not error to refuse to admit results offered by defendant); People v. Forte, 279 N. Y. 204 , 18 N. E. (2d) 31, 119 A. L. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.