Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 145. PUBLIC HEALTH PROVISIONS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 145.415 (2026)

[Repealed]

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

MS 2022 [Repealed, 2023 c 70 art 4 s 113]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1974–1978 · leading case: Hodgson v. Lawson, 542 F.2d 1350 (8th Cir. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hodgson v. Lawson, 542 F.2d 1350 (8th Cir. 1976). · cites it 5× “The phrase “potentially viable,” impermissibly defined in terms of the twentieth week of gestation, also plays an integral role in Minn.Stat. § 145.415, which provides: Subd.”
Hodgson v. Anderson, 378 F. Supp. 1008 (D. Minn. 1974). · cites it 4× “498 (Minn.Stat. § 145.415 (1974)) is challenged in its entirety.”
Wynn v. Scott, 449 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Ill. 1978). “40 (West 1957); Minn.Stat. § 145.415 subd. 3 (Supp. 74); See Note, Medical Responsibility for Fetal Survival And Roe and Doe, 10 Harv.”
Freiman v. Ashcroft, 584 F.2d 247 (8th Cir. 1978). · cites it 2× “In Hodgson , this court found the statute to be unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “potentially viable,” but we additionally noted: The constitutionality of Minn.Stat. § 145.415, subd. 3 * * * is also highly questionable for reasons not advanced by the appellees…”
Minn. Stat. § 145.415(3): 1 case
Freiman v. Ashcroft, 584 F.2d 247 (8th Cir. 1978). “In Hodgson , this court found the statute to be unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “potentially viable,” but we additionally noted: The constitutionality of Minn.Stat. § 145.415, subd. 3 * * * is also highly questionable for reasons not advanced by the appellees…”
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.