6 Minnesota opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commissiongreen2 sentences2010Id.; see also Peoples Natural Gas, 369 N.W.2d at 535 (noting that implied authority does not exist merely because "the power to order refunds would be useful to the Commission as an enforcement measure"). 2010Id.; see also Peoples Natural Gas, 369 N.W.2d at 535 (noting that implied authority does not exist merely because “the power to order refunds would be useful to the Commission as an enforcement measure”). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis
green
1 sentence2025But we have also made clear that Anderson did not establish a broad and sweeping rule that a municipality can never be liable in tort for cases fitting within the category of “municipal permitting decisions.” See Snyder v. City of Minneapolis, 441 N.W.2d 781 , 786–87 (Minn. 1989). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. MAP
green
1 sentence2012The dissent relies heavily on our "independent appellate authority to review whatever case [we] deem[ ] necessary in the interests of justice” and cites State v. M.A.P., 281 N.W.2d 334 (Minn.1979), in reaching its conclusion that the time limits in Minn.Stat. § 590.01, are unconstitutional. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709
green
2 sentences1976No. 709, 298 Minn. 306 , 215 N.W.2d 814 (1974), we analyzed the need for recognizing a sweeping exception to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, including instances in which a public body attempts to discuss pending litigation with its attorney without public notification or participation. 1976No. 709, 298 Minn. 306 , 215 N.W.2d 814 (1974), we analyzed the need for recognizing a sweeping exception to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, including instances in which a public body attempts to discuss pending litigation with its attorney without public notification or participation. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.