Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 6.03 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ 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
[Renumbered 16A.40]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Leininger v. City of Bloomington, 299 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. 1980).
Leininger v. City of Bloomington, 299 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. 1980). “” Thus, in this case, the statute prevails over section 6.03, subdivision 3, of the City of Bloomington Home Rule Charter, and Merit Rule 18.”
State v. Thompson, 929 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019). “, § 6.03[a], at 511-13. Unless a Congressional grant of authority exists, states may exercise jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed on an Indian reservation only to the extent that the federal government and a tribe may not do so.”
Ferrara, No. 0:25-cv-02142 (D. Minn. Oct. 30, 2025). “02 shall be binding for the purposes of this Agreement except to the extent set forth in Section 6.03. Id. The second valuation method applied when there was no “re-determination of the Fair Market Value of the Shares pursuant to Section 6.”
Kendall v. Twin Cities Iron Workers Pension Plan, 893 F. Supp. 2d 988 (D. Minn. 2012). “06; TCIW Plan § 6.03.) Both plans clearly grant the Trustees discretionary authority to determine Plaintiffs benefit eligibility, and Plaintiff does not argue to the contrary.”
A22-1770 In the Matter of the Trust established under the Pooling & Servicing Agreement relating to the Wachovia Bank ..., No. a221769 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2024). “pursuant to Section 6.03.” Section 6.03 states that “the [s]pecial [s]ervicer shall be indemnified and held harmless by the [t]rust .”
Villa Lara v. LG Elec. U.S.A., Inc., No. 0:17-cv-05222 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 2018). “See Restatement (Third) of the Law of Agency § 6.03 (2018). Both he and his grandmother went to Best Buy together; he picked out the TV; she completed the transaction with Best Buy; he took the TV home; and he paid her back.”
Garwood v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, No. 0:22-cv-01918 (D. Minn. Mar. 26, 2024). “§ 6.03 (a), (b)). “Intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as the appellant’s acts, words, and conduct.”
Meyer v. Duluth Bldg. Trades Welfare Fund, 149 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (D. Minn. 2001). “1993), was as follows: § 6.03. In case of any factual dispute hereunder, the Retirement Committee shall resolve such dispute giving due weight to all evidence available to it.”
Minn. Stat. § 6.03(3): 1 case
Ferrara, No. 0:25-cv-02142 (D. Minn. Oct. 30, 2025). “02 shall be binding for the purposes of this Agreement except to the extent set forth in Section 6.03. Id. The second valuation method applied when there was no “re-determination of the Fair Market Value of the Shares pursuant to Section 6.”
Minn. Stat. § 6.03(a): 1 case
Ferrara, No. 0:25-cv-02142 (D. Minn. Oct. 30, 2025). “02 shall be binding for the purposes of this Agreement except to the extent set forth in Section 6.03. Id. The second valuation method applied when there was no “re-determination of the Fair Market Value of the Shares pursuant to Section 6.”
Minn. Stat. § 6.03(e): 1 case
Ferrara, No. 0:25-cv-02142 (D. Minn. Oct. 30, 2025). “02 shall be binding for the purposes of this Agreement except to the extent set forth in Section 6.03. Id. The second valuation method applied when there was no “re-determination of the Fair Market Value of the Shares pursuant to Section 6.”
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.