§
Subdivision 1.After decision in court of appeals.
The supreme court may grant further review of any decision of the court of appeals upon the petition of any party. In determining whether to grant such a petition, the supreme court should take into consideration whether the question presented is an important one upon which the court has not, but should rule, whether the court of appeals has held a statute to be unconstitutional, whether the court of appeals has decided a question in direct conflict with an applicable precedent of the supreme court, or whether the lower courts have so far departed from the accepted and usual course of justice as to call for an exercise of the court's supervisory powers. The supreme court shall issue its decision whether to grant a petition for review within 60 days of the date the petition is filed.
§
Subd. 2.Before decision in court of appeals.
(a) The supreme court may grant accelerated review of any case pending in the court of appeals upon the petition of any party. The supreme court shall establish rules for petitions. The petition should be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify the deviation from normal appellate processes and to require immediate settlement in the supreme court. Making a petition for accelerated review does not stay proceedings or extend time in the court of appeals. If accelerated review is granted, the case shall be transferred to the supreme court without decision in the court of appeals.
(b) Upon its own motion or upon the certification of the court of appeals, the supreme court may provide for accelerated review of any case if (1) the question presented is an important one upon which the court has not, but should rule, (2) the lower courts have held a statute to be unconstitutional, or (3) the lower courts have so far departed from the accepted and usual course of justice as to call for an exercise of the court's supervisory powers.
§
Subd. 3.Rules.
The Rules of Appellate Procedure shall prescribe the form for petitions for further or accelerated review, and the time for filing them.
Notes of Decisions
In Re Est. of Turner, 391 N.W.2d 767 (Minn. 1986).
· cites it 4× “15 does create an age classification, the classification is not manifestly arbitrary and is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. On appeal by the estate, the Court of Appeals affirmed and certified the issue to this court for accelerated review, 379 N.”
Niccum v. Hydra Tool Corp., 438 N.W.2d 96 (Minn. 1989).
· cites it 2× “3, and Minn.Stat. § 480A.10, subd. 2(b)(i) (1988), seeking accelerated review before this court.”
Murphy v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co., 388 N.W.2d 732 (Minn. 1986).
· cites it 2× “2; see Minn.Stat. § 480A.10, subd. 1 (1984). Consequently, denial of a petition for further review means no more than that the supreme court has declined, at that time and for whatever undisclosed reasons, to consider the matter.”
Frankson v. Design Space Int'l, 380 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 8× “See Minn.Stat. § 480A.10, subd. 2(b) (1984). DECISION The trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in its directed verdict for Frankson on DSI's counterclaims.”
Bianchi v. Nordby, 409 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 2× “3, of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure and Minnesota Statutes § 480A.10, subd. 2(b)(i) (1986), and we granted certification.”
Marriage of Lindberg v. Lindberg, 379 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “ORDER CERTIFICATION AND REQUEST WHEREAS, the above-entitled appeal is now pending in this court; and *580 WHEREAS, this court has determined that certification of the matter to the Supreme Court for accelerated review pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 480A.10 subd. 2(b) (1984) is…”
State v. Traczyk, 421 N.W.2d 299 (Minn. 1988).
· cites it 2× “3, and Minn.Stat. § 480A.10, subd. 2(b) (1986), the trial court certified the following question: “Is the extension of the statute of limitations for certain criminal offenses, which was enacted (and became effective) during the original time period for the offense, but after…”
Egeland v. State, 408 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 2× “3, and Minn.Stat. § 480A.10, subd. 2(b)(i) (1986).”
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.