Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 3. LEGISLATURE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 3.11 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1957 c 811 s 2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1968–2014 · leading case: State v. Trei, 624 N.W.2d 595 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Trei, 624 N.W.2d 595 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “1990), cited with approval section 3.11 of the Model Penal Code, which states: A threat to cause death or serious bodily harm, by the production of a weapon or otherwise, so long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if…”
Kiefer v. Ceridian Corp., 976 F. Supp. 829 (D. Minnesota 1997). · cites it 6× “The 199S Version of the Plan On March 30, 1993, Ceridian amended the Plan to read as follows: Lump Sum Option — The factor to be applied in computing a lump sum benefit for purposes of Section 3.11(a) is the product of the factor determined under item (A) below, multiplied by…”
Johnson v. Morris, 453 N.W.2d 31 (Minn. 1990). “Model Penal Code § 3.11(2); see also Minn.Stat. § 609.066(1) (1988).”
State v. Crawley, 819 N.W.2d 94 (Minn. 2012). “Some commentators have observed that viewpoint-discriminatory laws regulating protected areas of speech may be per se unconstitutional.”
United States v. Country Lake Foods, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 669 (D. Minnesota 1990). · cites it 2× “Under the Justice Department’s Merger Guidelines, § 3.11, a market with an HHI exceeding 1800 is characterized as highly concentrated.”
State v. Baker, 160 N.W.2d 240 (Minn. 1968). “” In support of the foregoing principles, see 1 Harper & James, Torts, § 3.11, p. 242; Restatement, Torts, § 65, comment g; Prosser, Torts (3 ed.”
Fid. & Guar. Ins. v. Global Tech., Ltd., 117 F. Supp. 2d 911 (D. Minnesota 2000). “Widiss, Insurance Law § 3.11(a)(2) (1st ed.1988). For example, where an insured already has policy coverage up to an amount of $500,000, $400,000 of umbrella coverage would only cover damages between $500,000 and $900,000.”
Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. v. Schmuckler, 603 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “See Keeton, supra § 3.11, at 253-54 (discussing “Other Insurance Clauses” and intent of such clauses to declare that another insurer provides primary coverage or that contract provides no coverage when other insurance coverage applies to the loss).”
United States v. White, 23 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (D. Minnesota 2014). “§ 3.11 (2011) (“A reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act.”
— Minn. Stat. § 3.11(2) — 2 cases
State v. Trei, 624 N.W.2d 595 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). “1990), cited with approval section 3.11 of the Model Penal Code, which states: A threat to cause death or serious bodily harm, by the production of a weapon or otherwise, so long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if…”
Johnson v. Morris, 453 N.W.2d 31 (Minn. 1990). “Model Penal Code § 3.11(2); see also Minn.Stat. § 609.066(1) (1988).”
— Minn. Stat. § 3.11(a) — 1 case
Kiefer v. Ceridian Corp., 976 F. Supp. 829 (D. Minnesota 1997). “The 199S Version of the Plan On March 30, 1993, Ceridian amended the Plan to read as follows: Lump Sum Option — The factor to be applied in computing a lump sum benefit for purposes of Section 3.11(a) is the product of the factor determined under item (A) below, multiplied by…”
— Minn. Stat. § 3.11(a)(2) — 1 case
Fid. & Guar. Ins. v. Global Tech., Ltd., 117 F. Supp. 2d 911 (D. Minnesota 2000). “Widiss, Insurance Law § 3.11(a)(2) (1st ed.1988). For example, where an insured already has policy coverage up to an amount of $500,000, $400,000 of umbrella coverage would only cover damages between $500,000 and $900,000.”
— Minn. Stat. § 3.11(b) — 1 case
Kiefer v. Ceridian Corp., 976 F. Supp. 829 (D. Minnesota 1997). “The 199S Version of the Plan On March 30, 1993, Ceridian amended the Plan to read as follows: Lump Sum Option — The factor to be applied in computing a lump sum benefit for purposes of Section 3.11(a) is the product of the factor determined under item (A) below, multiplied by…”
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.