Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 11. STATE BOARD OF INVESTMENT
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 11.02 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1959 c 693 s 7]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: NBZ Enter., Inc. v. City of Shakopee, 489 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
NBZ Enter., Inc. v. City of Shakopee, 489 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “, Zoning Ordinance § 11.02, 121 (1981). When section 11.24, subd.”
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 2× “04, are among the C-3 Commercial Zone permitted uses enumerated in § 11.02. Courts generally strive to construe a term according to its ordinary meaning.”
Otto B. Ashbach & Sons, Inc. v. State, 78 N.W.2d 446 (Minn. 1956). · cites it 18× “Section 11.02 of the contract provided that for “rock cuts” plaintiff would be paid at the rate of $2.”
Singsaas v. Diederich, 238 N.W.2d 878 (Minn. 1976). “This intent is emphasized by the further explicit provision, noted supra, that “[t]his insurance applies only to bodily injury * * * which occurs during the policy period * * The trial court decision is consistent with the generally accepted rule that the time of the occurrence…”
Kliber v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 794 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (D. Minn. 2011). “, Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 11.02. Section 11.00 of Appendix 1 provides further information about evaluation of Listings 11.”
Ge Xiong v. Colvin, 995 F. Supp. 2d 958 (D. Minn. 2014). “appendix 1, §§ 11.02,11.03. The criteria for epilepsy can be applied “only if the impairment persists despite the fact that the individual is follow *988 ing prescribed antiepileptic treatment.”
Hornick-Lindell (D. Minn. 2026). · cites it 4× “Next, she argues the ALJ erred by failing to properly consider whether her migraines and headaches equal listing § 11.02 at step three. Because the petition is remanded for further consideration of the RFC determination and findings made there related to Plaintiff’s subjective…”
Gessner v. Berryhill (D. Minn. 2018). · cites it 3× “1, § 11.02. The medical evidence of record does not contain findings of symptoms such as aura, altered awareness, nausea, or phototopia.”
Davis v. Kijakazi (D. Minn. 2022). · cites it 2× “Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 11.02 (2017). Equaling either of these paragraphs’ criteria leads to a determination of disability.”
Mayer v. Berryhill (D. Minn. 2019). “, Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 11.02 (emphasis added). While the ALJ did not analyze whether Plaintiff experienced these symptoms, the Court does not find any instances in the record where Plaintiff experienced “a loss of consciousness and violent muscle contractions.”
Whalen v. Minneapolis Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 245 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 1976). “1288, 1295 (1936); 2 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 11.02;”
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.