279 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2026 23 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Yanggreen2 sentences2016State v. Yang, 774 N.W.2d 539, 551 (Minn. 2009). 2016State v. Yang, 774 N.W.2d 539, 551 (Minn. 2009). | 7 | 7 |
In Re the Welfare of A.A.E.green2 sentences2003In re Welfare of A.A.E., 590 N.W.2d 773, 776 (Minn.1999). 2003In re A.A.E., 590 N.W.2d 773, 776 (Minn.1999). | 6 | 6 |
State v. Raleighgreen2 sentences2024State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Minn. 2010). 4 Brown argues that his guilty pleas are both unintelligent and involuntary. 2023State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Minn. 2010). | 5 | 7 |
State v. Gaustergreen2 sentences2025State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008). 2016“If the underlying facts are not in dispute, we apply a de novo standard of review to a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence.” State v. Luhm, 880 N.W.2d 606, 611 (Minn. App. 2016) (citing Gauster, 752 N.W.2d at 502 ). | 5 | 6 |
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.green2 sentences2017Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., 749 N.W.2d 367, 371 (Minn. 2008). 2017Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., 749 N.W.2d 367, 371 (Minn. 2008). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Murphygreen2 sentences2016See State v. Murphy, 545 N.W.2d 909, 914 (Minn.1996) (applying a de novo standard to the question of whether Murphy's conduct constituted a threat to commit a crime of violence under the terroristic-threats statute). 3 . 2011State v. Carufel, 783 N.W.2d 539, 542 (Minn.2010); State v. Murphy, 545 N.W.2d 909, 914 (Minn.1996); State v. Marinaro, 768 N.W.2d 393, 397 (Minn.App.2009), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2009). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Nessgreen2 sentences2015State v. Ness, 834 N.W.2d 177, 181 (Minn. 2013). 2015State v. Ness, 834 N.W.2d 177, 181 (Minn.2013). | 5 | 5 |
Becker v. Mayo Foundationgreen2 sentences2013Becker v. Mayo Found., 737 N.W.2d 200, 207 (Minn.2007). 2012See Becker v. Mayo Found., 737 N.W.2d 200, 207 (Minn.2007); Hennepin Cnty. v. Hill, 777 N.W.2d 252, 254 (Minn.App.2010). | 5 | 5 |
Art Goebel, Inc. v. North Suburban Agencies, Inc.green2 sentences2006"A de novo standard of review is used to determine whether the district court erred in its application of the law." Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc., 567 N.W.2d 511, 515 (Minn. 1997); see also Wiegel v. City of St. 2006“A de novo standard of review is used to determine whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc., 567 N.W.2d 511, 515 (Minn.1997); see also Wiegel v. City of St. | 4 | 5 |
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp.green2 sentences2016We acknowledged that' “[a] deferential standard of review might be 1 ’applicable where, after balancing the equities, the district court determines not to award equitable relief,” id., but where “the district court ruled as .a - matter' of law that, the requirements for rescission and reformation were not met” and the court also “ruled based on Undisputed facts .... in response to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment,” the de novo standard of review “does not change simply because the claims, at issue are for equitable relief,” id. at 861 . . •In RAM, we addressed substantially the 2016We acknowledged that' “[a] deferential standard of review might be 1 ’applicable where, after balancing the equities, the district court determines not to award equitable relief,” id., but where “the district court ruled as .a - matter' of law that, the requirements for rescission and reformation were not met” and the court also “ruled based on Undisputed facts .... in response to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment,” the de novo standard of review “does not change simply because the claims, at issue are for equitable relief,” id. at 861 . . •In RAM, we addressed substantially the | 4 | 4 |
State v. Grampregreen2 sentences2015“The issue whether a particular reason for an upward departure is permissible is a question of law, which is subject to a de novo standard of review.” State v. Grampre, 766 N.W.2d 347, 350 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Aug. 26, 2009). 2010Guidelines II.D.2.(b). “[W]hether a particular reason for an upward departure is permissible is a question of law, which is subject to a de novo standard of review.” State v. Grampre, 766 N.W.2d 347, 350 (Minn.App.2009), review denied (Minn. Aug. 26, 2009). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Shattuckgreen2 sentences2014Generally, departures are limited to “double the presumptive sentence length.” Perkins v. State, 559 N.W.2d 678, 692 (Minn. 1997). “[F]or the district court to impose a greater-than-double-durational sentence, there must be severe aggravating factors.” State v. Stanke, 764 N.W.2d 824, 828 (Minn. 2009). “[I]n such cases the only absolute limit on duration is the maximum provided in the statute defining the offense.” State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131, 140 (Minn. 2005) (citation omitted). 2009State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131, 135 (Minn.2005). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2005State v. Wright, 588 N.W.2d 166 , 168 (Minn.App.1998), review denied (Minn. Feb. 24, 1999). 2004State v. Wright, 588 N.W.2d 166, 168 (Minn.App.1998). | 3 | 4 |
Matter of Linehangreen2 sentences2017“We apply a de novo standard of review to the question whether the facts found by the district court satisfy the statutory criteria for commitment, which is a question of law.” Spicer, 853 N.W.2d at 807 (citing In re Linehan, 518 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Minn. 1994) (Linehan I )). 2014In re Linehan (Linehan I), 518 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Minn. 1994). | 3 | 3 |
Hennepin County v. Hillgreen2 sentences2016Hennepin Cty. v. Hill, 777 N.W.2d 252, 254 (Minn. 2010). 2012See Becker v. Mayo Found., 737 N.W.2d 200, 207 (Minn.2007); Hennepin Cnty. v. Hill, 777 N.W.2d 252, 254 (Minn.App.2010). | 3 | 3 |
Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc.green2 sentences2015Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., 777 N.W.2d 755, 758 (Minn.2010). 2014Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., 777 N.W.2d 755, 758 (Minn.2010). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Logegreen2 sentences2011State v. Loge, 608 N.W.2d 152, 155 (Minn.2000). 2011State v. Loge, 608 N.W.2d 152, 155 (Minn.2000). | 3 | 3 |
Medica, Inc. v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co.green2 sentences2026Co., 566 N.W.2d 74, 76 (Minn. 1997) (explaining that, when “the parties do not dispute the relevant facts, a de novo standard of review is applied to determine whether the district court erred in its application of the law”). 2016Our recent decisions have taken differing, approaches to. resolving the conflict between the de novo standard of review applicable to á district court’s decision granting or denying summary judgment when the facts are not in dispute, on the one hand, and the abuse of discretion standard applicable to a district court’s decision whether to grant equitable relief, on the other. 2 In Medica, Inc.,, we addressed the question whether a health maintenance organization has subrogation rights against an insurer that issued a general liability policy. 566 N.W.2d at 77-78 . | 2 | 4 |
Clifford G. Menyweather, Relator v. Fedtech, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Developmentgreen2 sentences2018Ctr., Inc. , 888 N.W.2d 452 , 460 (Minn. 2016). 4 But we apply a de novo standard of review "to the ULJ's interpretation of the unemployment statutes and to the ultimate question whether an applicant is eligible to receive unemployment benefits." Menyweather v. Fedtech, Inc. , 872 N.W.2d 543 , 545 (Minn. App. 2015). 2017“If the relevant facts are not in dispute, we apply a de novo standard of review to the ULJ’s interpretation of the unemployment statutes and to the ultimate question of whether an applicant is eligible to receive unemployment benefits.” Menyweather v. Fedtech, Inc., 872 N.W.2d 543, 545 (Minn. App. 2015). 4 “The Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law is ‘remedial in nature and must be applied in favor of awarding unemployment benefits.’” White v. Univ. of Minn. Physicians Corp., 875 N.W.2d 351, 354 (Minn. App. 2016) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 268.031 , subd. 2 (2014)). | 2 | 3 |
Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLCgreen2 sentences2016Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753, 758 (Minn.2010). 2011Under the de novo standard of review, “we determine if the law was properly applied and whether there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment.” Id. | 2 | 3 |
Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.green2 sentences2016Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone Inc., 820 N.W.2d 826, 836 (Minn. 2012). 2016Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone Inc., 820 N.W.2d 826, 836 (Minn. 2012). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2015State v. Jackson, 749 N.W.2d 353, 357 (Minn. 2008). 2015Jackson, 749 N.W.2d at 357 ; Dillon v. State, 781 N.W.2d 588, 598 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010); State v. Grampre, 766 N.W.2d 347, 350 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Aug. 26, 7 2009). | 2 | 3 |
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLCgreen2 sentences2015Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC, 771 N.W.2d 14, 18 (Minn. 2009). 2014Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC, 771 N.W.2d 14, 18 (Minn. 2009). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Barrettgreen2 sentences2013See State v. Barrett, 694 N.W.2d 783, 785 (Minn.2005); Niemi v. Girl Scouts of Minn. & Wis. Lakes & Pines, 768 N.W.2d 385, 387 (Minn.App.2009). 2010See State v. Barrett, 694 N.W.2d 783, 785 (Minn.2005). | 2 | 3 |
| Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstromgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Wheeler v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.green | 2 | 2 |
| Lewin v. ASPEN MEDICAL GROUPgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Fabio v. Bellomogreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Flowersgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.green | 2 | 2 |
| Almor Corp. v. County of Hennepingreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Yaritzgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Schober v. Commissioner of Revenuegreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Caulfieldgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Christiansengreen | 2 | 2 |
| Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
| In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M.green | 2 | 2 |
| Swenson v. Nickaboinegreen | 2 | 2 |
| Johnson v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.green2 sentences2016Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone Inc., 820 N.W.2d 826, 836 (Minn. 2012). 2016Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone Inc., 820 N.W.2d 826, 836 (Minn. 2012). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Clarkin
green
2 sentences2018State v. Clarkin , 817 N.W.2d 678 , 687 (Minn. 2012). 2016Id. | 6 | 2016–2018 |
State v. Thonesavanh
green
2 sentences2019Id. 2019Id. | 4 | 2018–2019 |
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co.
green
2 sentences2004Id. 2004Id. | 4 | 1996–2004 |
In re the Pamela Andreas Stisser Grantor Trust
green
2 sentences2016Stisser, 818 N.W.2d at 502 . 6 Section 6.3.6 of decedent’s amended trust instrument prescribes the manner in which a beneficiary may object to a trustee’s accounting and the consequences of a failure to make a timely objection: Approval of Trustee’s Accounts if I am Incapacitated or Deceased. 2014Stisser, 818 N.W.2d at 502 . | 3 | 2013–2016 |
| United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Bruggeman green | 2 | 2012–2016 |
| Day Masonry v. Independent School District 347 green | 2 | 2014–2015 |
| Mathews v. Eldridge green | 2 | 1987–2015 |
| Dostal v. Curran green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. v. Bahr Construction, LLC green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. HA green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Dorsey green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Continental Retail, LLC v. County of Hennepin green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Austin green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.