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.
9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 2 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 the Review of the 2005 Annual Automatic Adjustment of Charges for All Electric & Gas Utilitiesgreen2 sentences2024Automatic Adjustment, 768 N.W.2d at 120 (“[A]n agency must generally conform to its prior norms and decisions or, to the extent that it departs from its prior norms and decisions, the agency must set forth a reasoned analysis for the departure that is not arbitrary and capricious.”). 2024Automatic Adjustment of Charges for All Elec. & Gas Utilities, 768 N.W.2d 112, 120 (Minn. 2009) (“[A]n agency must generally conform to its prior norms and decisions or, to the extent that it departs from its prior norms and decisions, the agency must set forth a reasoned analysis for the departure that is not arbitrary and capricious.”). | 3 | 3 |
Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife v. William P. Clark, as Secretary of the Interior and the Department of the Interiorgreen2 sentences2009But where, as here, the Commission chooses to deviate from previously established norms in granting such variances, the Commission must set forth "a reasoned analysis for change." See Sierra Club, 755 F.2d at 619 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2009But where, as here, the Commission chooses to deviate from previously established norms in granting such variances, the Commission must set forth “a reasoned analysis for change.” See Sierra Club, 755 F.2d at 619 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn Park
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Humes
green
1 sentence2002Humes, 581 N.W.2d at 320 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Bangert v. State
green
1 sentence2002Relying on Bangert v. State, 282 N.W.2d 540 (Minn.1979), the court reasoned that an error of law in sentencing may be corrected even though it results in a harsher sentence. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Greenpeace Action v. Franklin
green
2 sentences1995Id. 1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Berry v. State
green
1 sentence1987The standards on review of a denial of a post-conviction petition seeking a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence were discussed in Berry v. State, 364 N.W.2d 795 (Minn.1985): The decision whether to grant a new trial based upon newly-discovered evidence rests with the trial court and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Lawver v. Boling
green
2 sentences1984Under the facts here presented, we think the better reasoned rule of law is found in Lawver v. Boling, 71 Wis.2d 408 , 238 N.W.2d 514 (1976). 1984Under the facts here presented, we think the better reasoned rule of law is found in Lawver v. Boling, 71 Wis.2d 408 , 238 N.W.2d 514 (1976). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.