Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 3.762 (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[Repealed]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 1992 [Renumbered 15.472]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1987–1993 · leading case: McMains v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 409 N.W.2d 911 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
McMains v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 409 N.W.2d 911 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “See Minn.Stat. § 3.762(a) (1986). 1 The trial court denied the motion, determining that the Commissioner of Public Safety did not act in bad faith in requiring a hearing, and that an award of costs and fees to appellant was not appropriate.”
Donovan Contracting of St. Cloud, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep't of Transp., 469 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “2 and shall award, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 3.762(a), fees and other expenses incurred in the above litigation.”
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Baillon Co., 503 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). “Is Baillon a “prevailing party” under the Act? *802 ANALYSIS Minn.Stat. § 3.762(a) (1992) provides: If a prevailing party other than the state, in a civil action or contested case proceeding other than a tort action, brought by or against the state, shows that the position of…”
In Re the Occupational License of Haymes, 444 N.W.2d 257 (Minn. 1989). “Minn.Stat. § 3.762. The Racing Commission was dissatisfied with the administrative law judge’s decision, not because of the amount of the fees, but because it believed the judge erred in construing the Act to allow Hutchinson to recover Haymes’ fees.”
In re the Occupational License of Haymes, 427 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “This is an appeal from the order of an administrative law judge awarding attorney fees and expenses to Kathy Hutchinson pursuant to the Minnesota Equal Access to Justice Act, Minn. Stat. § 3.762 (1986). The Minnesota Racing Commission petitioned for discretionary review,…”
Snider v. State, Dep't of Transp., 445 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). “The trial court awarded $25,000 in attorney fees and costs to respondents pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 3.762 (1988) which provides: (a) If a prevailing party other than the state, in a civil action or contested case proceeding other than a tort action, brought by or against the…”
Lienhard v. State, 417 N.W.2d 119 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “Minn.Stat. § 3.762(a), enacted in 1986, specifically precludes recovery of costs in a tort action against the state.”
— Minn. Stat. § 3.762(a) — 6 cases
McMains v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 409 N.W.2d 911 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “See Minn.Stat. § 3.762(a) (1986). 1 The trial court denied the motion, determining that the Commissioner of Public Safety did not act in bad faith in requiring a hearing, and that an award of costs and fees to appellant was not appropriate.”
Donovan Contracting of St. Cloud, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep't of Transp., 469 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “2 and shall award, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 3.762(a), fees and other expenses incurred in the above litigation.”
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Baillon Co., 503 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). “Is Baillon a “prevailing party” under the Act? *802 ANALYSIS Minn.Stat. § 3.762(a) (1992) provides: If a prevailing party other than the state, in a civil action or contested case proceeding other than a tort action, brought by or against the state, shows that the position of…”
Snider v. State, Dep't of Transp., 445 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). “The trial court awarded $25,000 in attorney fees and costs to respondents pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 3.762 (1988) which provides: (a) If a prevailing party other than the state, in a civil action or contested case proceeding other than a tort action, brought by or against the…”
In re the Occupational License of Haymes, 427 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “This is an appeal from the order of an administrative law judge awarding attorney fees and expenses to Kathy Hutchinson pursuant to the Minnesota Equal Access to Justice Act, Minn. Stat. § 3.762 (1986). The Minnesota Racing Commission petitioned for discretionary review,…”
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.