Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 2. TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 2.03 (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[Repealed]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MS 1957 [Repealed, Ex1959 c 45 s 70]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1964–2024 · leading case: Dunham v. Roer, 708 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dunham v. Roer, 708 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). “Digest Malicious Prosecution § 2.03 (4th ed.1996). *571 Appellant makes no showing that the respondent "instituted a groundless prosecution knowingly and willfully.”
In re Petters Co., Inc., 495 B.R. 887 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2013). “See Kathy Bazoian Phelps and Steven Rhodes, The Ponzi Book: A Legal Resource for Unraveling Ponzi Schemes (2012), § 2.03[1], at 2-6 nn. 5-6. A small minority of courts has rejected the presumption.”
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 438 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “Section 2.03(B) of the specifications provided that: All firms shall submit a completed copy of the form entitled, `SWORN STATEMENT REGARDING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN SUBCONTRACTING,' duly signed and notarized.”
State v. Austin, 788 N.W.2d 788 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). “2003); see also Model Penal Code § 2.03(2) (2001) (stating that element of “purposely or knowingly causing a particular result” is established if actual result differs “only in the respect that a different person .”
MidCountry Bank v. Krueger, 782 N.W.2d 238 (Minn. 2010). “Digest Recording Act § 2.03(b) (4th ed. 1998). Hinshaw and PHH also assert that we did not intend our statements in Latourell to apply to situations where the index is incorrect and the transcription of the document is correct, because we quoted Barney v.”
North Cent. Wool Mktg. Corp. v. Carothers (In Re Carothers), 22 B.R. 114 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1982). “” [Emphasis added] The trial court’s instruction on intent to deceive accurately enunciates Minnesota state law that a simple negligent misrepresentation will support an action for fraud.”
Schwartz v. Renville Farmers Co-Op Credit Union, 44 B.R. 266 (D. Minnesota 1984). “Bankruptcy fraud, in short, requires an intent to deceive.”
Fine v. City of Minneapolis, 391 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 1986). “7 Nichols, Law of Eminent Domain, § 2.03(1) (1985). Once the condemn- or invokes the quick-take provisions, the parties may, of course, agree on the value of the property and proceed as in a direct purchase.”
Honsey v. Donovan, 236 F. Supp. 8 (D. Minnesota 1964). “§ 2.03. Each district elects one senator.”
Kelley v. Opportunity Fin., LLC (In re Petters Co.), 532 B.R. 100 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2015). “Kathy Bazoian Phelps and Steven Rhodes, The Ponzi Book: A Legal Resource for Unraveling Ponzi Schemes (2012), §§ 2.03[l][d] and 3.02[5]. The notion of such an ancillary pretense is logical.”
Regents of the Univ. v. Applied Innovations, Inc., 685 F. Supp. 698 (D. Minnesota 1987). “The evidence demonstrates that Hathaway and McKinley exercised substantial judgment and creative intellectual effort when determining which answers to which questions would suggest a particular personality trait. Moreover, the T score conversion data is not a mere accidental…”
Tjernlund v. Kadrie, 425 N.W.2d 292 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “ny amounts used to repay then existing loans of the Partnership and to pay and provide for all debts and obligations of the Partnership then due, (ii) all expenses of such borrowings including, without limitation, all commitment fees, broker’s or agent’s commissions, charges by…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 2.03(1) — 1 case
Fine v. City of Minneapolis, 391 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 1986). “7 Nichols, Law of Eminent Domain, § 2.03(1) (1985). Once the condemn- or invokes the quick-take provisions, the parties may, of course, agree on the value of the property and proceed as in a direct purchase.”
— Minn. Stat. § 2.03(2) — 1 case
State v. Austin, 788 N.W.2d 788 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). “2003); see also Model Penal Code § 2.03(2) (2001) (stating that element of “purposely or knowingly causing a particular result” is established if actual result differs “only in the respect that a different person .”
— Minn. Stat. § 2.03(B) — 1 case
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 438 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). “Section 2.03(B) of the specifications provided that: All firms shall submit a completed copy of the form entitled, `SWORN STATEMENT REGARDING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN SUBCONTRACTING,' duly signed and notarized.”
— Minn. Stat. § 2.03(C) — 1 case
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Marie Hansen (Minn. Ct. App. 2024).
— Minn. Stat. § 2.03(b) — 2 cases
MidCountry Bank v. Krueger, 782 N.W.2d 238 (Minn. 2010). “Digest Recording Act § 2.03(b) (4th ed. 1998). Hinshaw and PHH also assert that we did not intend our statements in Latourell to apply to situations where the index is incorrect and the transcription of the document is correct, because we quoted Barney v.”
ResCap Liquidating Trust v. LendingTree, LLC (D. Minnesota 2020).
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.