§
Subdivision 1.Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
An employee, former employee, or prospective employee of the state who is aggrieved by the state's violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, United States Code, title 29, section 621, et seq., as amended, may bring a civil action against the state in federal court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of the act.
§
Subd. 2.Fair Labor Standards Act.
An employee of the state who is aggrieved by the state's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, United States Code, title 29, section 201, et seq., as amended, may bring a civil action against the state in federal court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of the act.
§
Subd. 3.Family and Medical Leave Act.
An employee, former employee, or prospective employee of the state who is aggrieved by the state's violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, United States Code, title 29, sections 2601 to 2654, as amended, may bring a civil action against the state in federal court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of the act.
§
Subd. 4.Americans with Disabilities Act.
An employee, former employee, or prospective employee of the state who is aggrieved by the state's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, United States Code, title 42, section 12101, as amended, may bring a civil action against the state in federal court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of the act.
§
Subd. 5.Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
An employee, former employee, or prospective employee of the state who is aggrieved by the state's violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, United States Code, title 38, sections 4301 to 4333, as amended, may bring a civil action against the state in federal court or another court of competent jurisdiction for legal or equitable relief that will effectuate the purposes of that act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case:
State v. Pettee, 538 N.W.2d 126 (Minn. 1995).
State v. Pettee, 538 N.W.2d 126 (Minn. 1995).
· cites it 6× “The explanatory note to section 1.05 elucidates in these words: Subsection (1) provides that no conduct constitutes an offense unless it is defined as a crime or violation by statute, thus abolishing common law offenses.”
Ernst v. Hinchliff, 129 F. Supp. 3d 695 (D. Minnesota 2015).
· cites it 2× “2010); see also Minn.Stat. § 1.05 (waiver of immunity for violations of certain federal statutes).”
State v. Hinkel, 365 N.W.2d 774 (Minn. 1985).
· cites it 2× “03, which section 1.05 makes a misdemeanor. Presence within the house when the officers entered constituted the commission of a misdemeanor in the presence of an officer, thus giving the officer authority to arrest without a warrant.”
Breaker v. Bemidji State Univ., 899 N.W.2d 515 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “192, § 1, at 1 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 1.05 , subd. 5). In this case, appellant sued respondent for violating USERRA based on the same factual circumstances supporting his tort claim in Breaker I.”
Evenstad v. Herberg, 994 F. Supp. 2d 995 (D. Minnesota 2014).
“” § 1.05, subd. 1; see also subds. 2-5 (stating the same).”
Chapman Place Ass'n, Inc. v. Prokasky, 507 N.W.2d 858 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “Hyatt, Condominium and Homeowner Ass’n Practice, § 1.05(c)(1) (1988). Under the condominium act, an association may sue on behalf of two or more unit owners on matters affecting the condominium.”
Lens Crafters, Inc. v. Vision World, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 1481 (D. Minnesota 1996).
“II 7-e, (October 3, 1951), cited in Dunnell Minnesota Digest, Volume 22, Fraud § 1.05 (4th Ed.1994). In addition, for a civil recovery, there is an implicit requirement of damage to the complaining party.”
Martin v. Benson, 827 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (D. Minnesota 2011).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 1.05. Thus, there is no issue of subject-matter jurisdiction that prevents this Court from considering Plaintiff's claim.”
Harrell v. State, 170 Wash. App. 386 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
“4 (“An employee, former employee, or prospective employee of the state who is aggrieved by the state’s violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, United States Code, title 42, section 12101, as amended, may bring a civil action against the state in federal court…”
— Minn. Stat. § 1.05(1) — 1 case
State v. Pettee, 538 N.W.2d 126 (Minn. 1995).
“The explanatory note to section 1.05 elucidates in these words: Subsection (1) provides that no conduct constitutes an offense unless it is defined as a crime or violation by statute, thus abolishing common law offenses.”
— Minn. Stat. § 1.05(c)(1) — 1 case
Chapman Place Ass'n, Inc. v. Prokasky, 507 N.W.2d 858 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
“Hyatt, Condominium and Homeowner Ass’n Practice, § 1.05(c)(1) (1988). Under the condominium act, an association may sue on behalf of two or more unit owners on matters affecting the condominium.”
— Minn. Stat. § 1.05(c)(2) — 1 case
Chapman Place Ass'n, Inc. v. Prokasky, 507 N.W.2d 858 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
“Hyatt, Condominium and Homeowner Ass’n Practice, § 1.05(c)(1) (1988). Under the condominium act, an association may sue on behalf of two or more unit owners on matters affecting the condominium.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.