Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 3. LEGISLATURE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 3.02 (2026)

Evidence Of Membership

✓ 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

For all purposes of organization of either house of the legislature, a certificate of election to it, duly executed by the secretary of state, is prima facie evidence of the right to membership of the person named in it.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1971–2017 · leading case: State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation Dist. v. Horner, 617 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation Dist. v. Horner, 617 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2000). · cites it 6× “Next, Jung and Martin both observed respondent create a large, rolling wake with his watercraft, a possible violation of section 3.02, subd. 4, of the LMCD Code, the "quiet waters" ordinance—classified as a misdemeanor.”
In re Petters Co., 499 B.R. 342 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2013). · cites it 3× “10, § 3.02[3][a], at p. 3-12. There does not seem to be any controversy in the case law *359 over the reasonable equivalence of the amount repaid on principal to the benefit to be deemed to the debtor, dollar-for-dollar.”
Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Tech., Inc., 648 F. Supp. 661 (D. Minn. 1986). · cites it 3× “2d 348 (1973); 1 Milgrim § 3.02[1] at 3-65 (questioning this principle of law).”
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis, 441 N.W.2d 781 (Minn. 1989). “Digest 2d Damages § 3.02 (3 ed. 1982). Reasonable rental value of a building during the period during which it would have been complete but for the wrongful act is a reasonable measure of damages.”
State ex rel. Goodwin v. Flahaven, 182 N.W.2d 182 (Minn. 1971). · cites it 4× “" Section 3.02 provides: "For all purposes of organization of either house of the legislature, a certificate of election thereto, duly executed by the auditor of the proper county, or by the secretary of state when the member is elected from more than one county, shall be prima…”
EF Johnson Co. v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 623 F. Supp. 1485 (D. Minn. 1985). “1984), citing 1 Nimmer on Copyright §§ 3.02, 3.03. An apt analogy to the case at bar can be found in the Synercom decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.”
State v. Hanson, 468 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “Model Penal Code § 3.02(c) (“a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear”).”
Anderson v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 465 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “69, 70, § 3.02, at 24. Of course, those courts do not construe the Minnesota legislature's intent, which is the only one we consider.”
Held v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Int'l, Inc., 672 F. Supp. 369 (D. Minn. 1987). “Friedman, Products Liability § 3.02[3] at 3-142-143 (1987). 11 . Plaintiffs erroneously contend that defendant do not deny making statements in their marketing campaign which functioned as express warranties of quality.”
Elisea Cervantes Anzures v. Michele Leann Ward, 890 N.W.2d 127 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). “, Administrative Code § 3.02 (2013). This language is broad enough to permit the city attorney to decide whether an employee is entitled to defense and indemnification under Minn.”
MacKenzie v. Summit Nat'l Bank of St. Paul, 363 N.W.2d 116 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “” 18A Dunnell Minnesota Digest 2d, Suretyship § 3.02 (3d ed. 1980). Therefore, even though there were funds available in various Medin accounts which could have been used to pay off the MCI loan, it was the duty of MacKenzie, rather than the appellant bank, to require Medin to…”
State v. Rosillo, 282 N.W.2d 872 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 2× “] “(4) When the conduct of the actor would otherwise be justifiable under Section 3.02 [relating to justification] this Section does not preclude such defense.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
Minn. Stat. § 3.02(1): 1 case
Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Tech., Inc., 648 F. Supp. 661 (D. Minn. 1986). “2d 348 (1973); 1 Milgrim § 3.02[1] at 3-65 (questioning this principle of law).”
Minn. Stat. § 3.02(3): 1 case
Itron, Inc. v. Benghiat, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (D. Minn. 2001).
Minn. Stat. § 3.02(c): 1 case
State v. Hanson, 468 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “Model Penal Code § 3.02(c) (“a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear”).”
Minn. Stat. § 3.02(i): 1 case
Kendall v. Twin Cities Iron Workers Pension Plan, 893 F. Supp. 2d 988 (D. Minn. 2012).
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.