Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 29.02 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1949 c 211 s 11]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1970–2010 · leading case: St. Paul Area Chamber of Com. v. Minnesota Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 251 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. 1977).
St. Paul Area Chamber of Com. v. Minnesota Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 251 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. 1977). “’ § 29.02. The main inquiry by the district court is ‘whether on the record * * * [the commission] could reasonably make the finding.”
Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 211 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. 1973). “NOTES [1] Brooklyn Park Zoning Code, § 29.02, subd. C. [2] Brooklyn Park Code of Ordinances, § 34.”
Whaley v. Anoka-Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11, 325 N.W.2d 128 (Minn. 1982). “Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 29.02 (1978)). In so reviewing the probative force of the evidence, “it is not the role of this court to try the matter de novo and to substitute its findings for those of the school board.”
Minneapolis Van & Warehouse Co. v. St. Paul Terminal Warehouse Co., 180 N.W.2d 175 (Minn. 1970). “” § 29.02. The main inquiry by the district court is “whether on the record * * * [the commission] could reasonably make the finding.”
Harju v. Olson, 709 F. Supp. 2d 699 (D. Minnesota 2010). “1990) (holding that a union has standing under ERISA if it suffered injury in fact, arguably falls within the zone of interests protected by ERISA, and shows that ERISA does not preclude suit); see also 2-29 Employee Benefits Guide § 29.02 (2009) ("It seems clear that employees'…”
Minnesota State Coll. Bd. v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 228 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. 1975). “While the test is ‘vague, rather than precise’ and the ‘intensity of review’ may vary from case to case, § 29.11, the ‘test is the same as the test on review of a jury verdict, but the review is narrower than the review of the findings of a judge sitting without a jury,’ § 29.”
Soo Line R.R. v. Minnesota Dep't of Transp., 304 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. 1981). “4 Soo Line explained what this benefit might have been, demonstrated that it no longer exists, and no evidence in the record controverts that position.”
Minn. St. Coll. Bd. v. Pub. Emp. Rel. Bd., 228 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. 1975). “While the test is `vague, rather than precise' and the `intensity of review' may vary from case to case, § 29.11, the `test is the same as the test on review of a jury verdict, but the review is narrower than the review of the findings of a judge sitting without a jury,' § 29.”
2600 Univ. Inn, LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 556 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). “Rathkopf, Rathkopf s The Law of Zoning & Planning, § 29.02[2][b][iv][B] (4th ed. Mar. 1996) (well-established that joint tenant has duty to protect common title); Roger A.”
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.