Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 10.06 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1961 c 561 s 17]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1985–2012 · leading case: State v. Hopperstad, 367 N.W.2d 546 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Hopperstad, 367 N.W.2d 546 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “John Douglas Hopperstad was convicted of violating § 10.06(3), disorderly conduct, of the Austin city ordinance, and he appealed.”
Kendall v. Twin Cities Iron Workers Pension Plan, 893 F. Supp. 2d 988 (D. Minn. 2012). “(793 Plan § 10.06; TCIW Plan § 6.03.) Both plans clearly grant the Trustees discretionary authority to determine Plaintiffs benefit eligibility, and Plaintiff does not argue to the contrary.”
Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 820 F. Supp. 444 (D. Minn. 1993). “§ 10.06[5], at 10-142. Defendants submit testimony which arguably suggests that persons other than Maxwell may have been the first to either conceive or reduce the system to practice.”
Minn. Stat. § 10.06(3): 1 case
State v. Hopperstad, 367 N.W.2d 546 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “John Douglas Hopperstad was convicted of violating § 10.06(3), disorderly conduct, of the Austin city ordinance, and he appealed.”
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.