panel hearing (Minnesota) · Go Syfert
← Minnesota issues

panel hearing in Minnesota

11 Minnesota opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2025 1 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Thedensgreen
minn · 1997 · cited in 4 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1998–2008
2 sentences

2008In re Milloy, 571 N.W.2d 39, 45 (Minn.1997); see also In re Thedens, 557 N.W.2d 344, 348-50 (Minn.1997) (suspending an attorney for 6 months for neglect of a client matter, multiple tax code violations, and noncooperation with the Director, which consisted of his failure to attend a panel hearing and habitually late responses to the Director’s requests); In re Klemek, 446 N.W.2d 391, 391-92 (Minn.1989) (suspending an attorney indefinitely for at least 6 months for failing to initiate timely contact with her probation supervisor, failing to provide information on her client files, failing to re

2007Finally, Thedens actually supports the referee’s recommendation because we ultimately ordered a six-month suspension for misconduct involving the failure to attend a panel hearing, liability for a civil tax-fraud penalty, failure to timely file federal and state income tax returns, and neglect of a single client matter. 557 N.W.2d at 344-45, 350 .

44
In Re the Discipline of Cartwrightgreen
minn · 1979 · cited in 2 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1985–2008
2 sentences

2008In re Milloy, 571 N.W.2d 39, 45 (Minn.1997); see also In re Thedens, 557 N.W.2d 344, 348-50 (Minn.1997) (suspending an attorney for 6 months for neglect of a client matter, multiple tax code violations, and noncooperation with the Director, which consisted of his failure to attend a panel hearing and habitually late responses to the Director’s requests); In re Klemek, 446 N.W.2d 391, 391-92 (Minn.1989) (suspending an attorney indefinitely for at least 6 months for failing to initiate timely contact with her probation supervisor, failing to provide information on her client files, failing to re

1985He failed to appear at a pre-hearing conference and failed to appear at the panel hearing scheduled by the Director, all in violation of Rule 25, Minn.R.Law.Prof.Resp., and this court’s holding in In re Cartwright, 282 N.W.2d 548 (Minn.1979).

12
In re Reinstatement of Mosegreen
minn · 2014 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017In re Mose, 843 N.W.2d 570, 573 (Minn. 2014).

11
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Milloygreen
minn · 1997 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008In re Milloy, 571 N.W.2d 39, 45 (Minn.1997); see also In re Thedens, 557 N.W.2d 344, 348-50 (Minn.1997) (suspending an attorney for 6 months for neglect of a client matter, multiple tax code violations, and noncooperation with the Director, which consisted of his failure to attend a panel hearing and habitually late responses to the Director’s requests); In re Klemek, 446 N.W.2d 391, 391-92 (Minn.1989) (suspending an attorney indefinitely for at least 6 months for failing to initiate timely contact with her probation supervisor, failing to provide information on her client files, failing to re

11
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Klemekgreen
minn · 1989 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008In re Milloy, 571 N.W.2d 39, 45 (Minn.1997); see also In re Thedens, 557 N.W.2d 344, 348-50 (Minn.1997) (suspending an attorney for 6 months for neglect of a client matter, multiple tax code violations, and noncooperation with the Director, which consisted of his failure to attend a panel hearing and habitually late responses to the Director’s requests); In re Klemek, 446 N.W.2d 391, 391-92 (Minn.1989) (suspending an attorney indefinitely for at least 6 months for failing to initiate timely contact with her probation supervisor, failing to provide information on her client files, failing to re

11
Application of Swansongreen
minn · 1984 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
1 sentence

1999The panel concluded that petitioner had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that he had “undergone such a moral change as now to render him a fit person to enjoy the public confidence and trust once forfeited.” In re Swanson, 343 N.W.2d 662, 664 (Minn.1984) (Swanson I).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
In re Reinstatement of Stockman green
minn · 2017
1 sentence

2025Stockman, 896 N.W.2d at 856 .

12025–2025
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Terrazas green
minn · 1998
1 sentence

2002Id. at 843 .

12002–2002
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Haugen green
minn · 1996
1 sentence

1998Haugen was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of 12 months, In Re Disciplinary Action Against Haugen, 543 N.W.2d 372 (Minn.1996); and WHEREAS, following petitioner’s application for reinstatement to permanent retired status, the matter was heard by a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board pursuant to Rule 18, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, which heard testimony from petitioner and the Director’s office and had before it the Director’s investigation report; and WHEREAS, following the panel hearing, the panel issued findings of fact, conc

11998–1998
In Re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Against N.P. green
minn · 1985
1 sentence

1987Finally, the claim that the disciplinary rules are constitutionally vague was rejected in In re N.P., supra. The remaining question is what discipline to impose.

11987–1987

Where else courts name it

OH 34 (1973–2024) NY 17 (1979–2000) NJ 14 (1980–2017) CO 13 (1982–2026) TX 13 (1963–2015) KS 12 (1979–2022) OK 12 (1929–2025) PA 11 (1986–2025) MN 11 (1985–2025) OR 9 (1996–2025) VA 9 (1987–2024) MI 8 (1975–2025) FL 7 (1977–2021) GA 6 (1882–2020) IL 6 (1988–2023) ME 5 (1999–2025) MD 5 (1984–2005) LA 5 (1984–2006) SC 5 (2010–2021) MO 4 (1981–2001) NC 4 (1902–2017) MS 4 (1958–1997) VI 3 (2012–2015) IN 3 (1977–2004) AZ 3 (1984–1985) NM 2 (2000–2006) WI 2 (1999–2011) IA 2 (2022–2022) CA 2 (1988–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check