Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 12.05 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
MS 1980 [Repealed, 1982 c 560 s 65]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2022 · leading case: Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC., 669 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. 2003).
Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC., 669 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. 2003). “See generally Domke § 12.05 at 14 (noting that an agreement to arbitrate "[a]ny claim or controversy arising out of or relating to th[e] agreement" is the paradigmatic broad arbitration clause).”
Harmison v. Halter, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (D. Minn. 2001). “Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 12.05(C), which would give rise to a conclusive presumption of disability.”
Monroe v. Astrue, 848 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D. Minn. 2011). “05C contains three distinct requirements: (1) the claimant must satisfy the “diagnostic description” set forth in the introductory paragraph of § 12.05; (2) the claimant must have “[a] valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70;” and (3) the claimant must have…”
Terrell v. Kijakazi, No. 0:20-cv-00576 (D. Minn. Aug. 16, 2021). “1 § 12.05(B)(1)(a). The ALJ’s decision to disregard § 12.”
Kane v. Berryhill, No. 0:17-cv-01002 (D. Minn. July 23, 2018). “1, § 12.05; see also (Admin. R. at 14–30). In light of the inconstancies in the record regarding Kane’s IQ scores, it cannot be said that the ALJ’s failure to make a finding regarding the onset of the intellectual impairment is harmless and this too warrants remand.”
Boyd v. Kijakazi, No. 0:20-cv-01794 (D. Minn. Feb. 1, 2022). “§ 12.05(B)(2); § 12.04(B); § 12.06(B). The ALJ considered the paragraph B criteria for each section and found that Plaintiff had only moderate limitations in her ability to understand, remember, or apply information; interact with others; concentrate, persist, or maintain pace;…”
Minn. Stat. § 12.05(B)(1)(a): 1 case
Terrell v. Kijakazi, No. 0:20-cv-00576 (D. Minn. Aug. 16, 2021). “1 § 12.05(B)(1)(a). The ALJ’s decision to disregard § 12.”
Minn. Stat. § 12.05(B)(2): 1 case
Boyd v. Kijakazi, No. 0:20-cv-01794 (D. Minn. Feb. 1, 2022). “§ 12.05(B)(2); § 12.04(B); § 12.06(B). The ALJ considered the paragraph B criteria for each section and found that Plaintiff had only moderate limitations in her ability to understand, remember, or apply information; interact with others; concentrate, persist, or maintain pace;…”
Minn. Stat. § 12.05(C): 2 cases
Harmison v. Halter, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (D. Minn. 2001). “Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 12.05(C), which would give rise to a conclusive presumption of disability.”
Monroe v. Astrue, 848 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D. Minn. 2011). “05C contains three distinct requirements: (1) the claimant must satisfy the “diagnostic description” set forth in the introductory paragraph of § 12.05; (2) the claimant must have “[a] valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70;” and (3) the claimant must have…”
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.