Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 5. SECRETARY OF STATE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 5.03 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 2009 c 98 s 36]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1944–2023 · leading case: State v. St. Christopher, 232 N.W.2d 798 (Minn. 1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. St. Christopher, 232 N.W.2d 798 (Minn. 1975). · cites it 7× “10, 1960) § 5.03, Comment. In view of that recognition, it is probably not quite as easy to reject the approach taken by the cases cited, yet this is what the draftsmen have done.”
State v. Russell, 477 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1991). · cites it 2× “Digest Constitutional Law § 5.03 (4th ed. 1990). Interestingly, our early cases tended to examine statutes challenged on equality grounds in terms of whether or not the statute was special legislation.”
United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Minnesota State Zoological Bd., 307 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 2× “This argument is based on section 5.03 of the contract which states that the Board “will seek approval of its budget and appropriations sufficient to pay such Installment Payments.”
Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardware Ass'n v. State, 279 N.W.2d 360 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 2× “See, Cooper, State Administrative Law at 174-75, Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 5.03 (Supp. 1978). In reviewing the power to designate controlled substances delegated by the legislature to the State Board of Pharmacy, we held in State v.”
Kiefer v. Ceridian Corp., 976 F. Supp. 829 (D. Minnesota 1997). · cites it 2× “02 or a deferred benefit under Section 5.03 may, upon termination of employment, elect at any time thereafter, subject to the Consent of Spouse requirement, if applicable, to receive his benefit in the form of a one-time lump sum payment determined as follows: (A) in the case of…”
Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Tech., Inc., 648 F. Supp. 661 (D. Minnesota 1986). “1 Milgrim § 5.03[1] at 5-26; American Loan Corp. v.”
City of Minneapolis v. Ames & Fischer Co. II, LLP, 724 N.W.2d 749 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Section 5.03 of the contract states that respondent will obtain a security bond “in an amount sufficient to pay for the estimated, annual debt service for the Bonds and the Parking Fund Loan and the estimated annual operating costs for the Parking Facility.”
In Re K-Tel Int'l, Inc., Sec. Litig., 107 F. Supp. 2d 994 (D. Minnesota 2000). “Edward Martin, Attorney’s Handbook of Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting, § 5.03[3] at 5-34 (1998). “Identifiable intangibles” include items such as patents, franchises, and trademarks.”
Lakes Gas Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 477 F. Supp. 187 (D. Minnesota 1979). · cites it 2× “Davis, Administrative Law of the Seventies, (Supplementing Administrative Law Treatise) § 5.03 at 147-48 (1976), (hereinafter cited Davis).”
McCutcheon v. City of St. Paul, 216 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. 1974). · cites it 2× “The city attorney and deputy and assistant city attorneys, subject to Section 5.03. E. The fire chief and police chief.”
Duluth-Superior Dredging Co. v. Comm'r of Taxation, 14 N.W.2d 439 (Minn. 1944). “Well reasoned is this excerpt therefrom (§ 5.03): “It seems apparent that ‘constitutionally taxable income’ is not a term that can be successfully defined so as to be binding for all time.”
Bremer v. Comm'r of Taxation, 75 N.W.2d 470 (Minn. 1956). “1 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 5.03. L. 1933, c. 405, § 24(a), now incorporated in § 290.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 5.03(1) — 1 case
State v. St. Christopher, 232 N.W.2d 798 (Minn. 1975). “10, 1960) § 5.03, Comment. In view of that recognition, it is probably not quite as easy to reject the approach taken by the cases cited, yet this is what the draftsmen have done.”
— Minn. Stat. § 5.03(6) — 1 case
State v. St. Christopher, 232 N.W.2d 798 (Minn. 1975). “10, 1960) § 5.03, Comment. In view of that recognition, it is probably not quite as easy to reject the approach taken by the cases cited, yet this is what the draftsmen have done.”
— Minn. Stat. § 5.03(C)(3) — 2 cases
Eng'g & Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. Bradshaw Constr. Corp. (D. Minnesota 2023).
Eng'g & Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. Bradshaw Constr. Corp. (D. Minnesota 2023).
— Minn. Stat. § 5.03(C)(6) — 2 cases
Eng'g & Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. Bradshaw Constr. Corp. (D. Minnesota 2023).
Eng'g & Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. Bradshaw Constr. Corp. (D. Minnesota 2023).
— Minn. Stat. § 5.03(e) — 1 case
Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Heritage Constr. Companies, LLC (D. Minnesota 2022).
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.