Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 147.021 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Renumbered 147.091]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1986–1989 · leading case: Padilla v. Minnesota State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 382 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
Padilla v. Minnesota State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 382 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “The Board charged Padilla with violations of Minn.Stat. § 147.021, subd. 1(g), (i) and (k) (1984).”
Doe v. Minnesota State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 435 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1989). “Doe), a psychiatrist *47 licensed in Minnesota, for various alleged acts of unethical and unprofessional conduct under Minn.Stat. § 147.021, subd. 1(g), (i) and (k) (1984) (renumbered section 147.”
Kollmorgen v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 416 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “Relator argues that insufficient evidence existed on the record to find him in violation of Minn.Stat. § 147.021, subd. 1(g) and (k) and that the Board relied upon evidence not on the record and upon evidence to which relator had no opportunity to respond.”
Sletten v. Briggs, 448 N.W.2d 607 (N.D. 1989). “That the Respondent has violated Minn.Stat. § 147.021, subd. 1(K), which prohibits unprofessional conduct including any departure from or the failure to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice, by virtue of his prescription of unapproved,…”
Doe v. Minnesota State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 419 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “A contested-case hearing was held before an administrative law judge (AU) to determine whether Doe’s conduct had violated certain provisions of the Medical Practices Act (Minn.Stat. § 147.021, subd. 1 (renumbered section 147.”
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.