Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau, 7 N.W.2d 501.

63 citing documents.

Trails Truck & Travel Plaza, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-08 (Minn. 1943) (holding that state cannot fix employer’s rate of contribution to unemployment fund without notice of p roceedings and opportunity for employer to be heard).
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
(upholding a law that created a conclusive presumption that full-time student s were unavailable for work and therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits); cf. Juster Bros., Inc. v. Christgau , –11 (Minn. 1943) (Pirsig, J., dissenting).
Richard Odoms, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Juster Bros., Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 119, (“Notice and an opportunity to be heard are universally recognized as essential to due process.”) (emphasis added); see also Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S. Ct. 893, 902 (1976) (the hallmark of procedural due process is “the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful tim
Caleb Wesen, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
214 Minn. 108, 120, (citing Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 23, 58 S. Ct. 999, 1000 (1938 )).
Godbout v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 827 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Godbout v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 827 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“The requirement of due process is a constitutional one and cannot be waived or ‘dispensed with’ either by the legislature or by an executive tribunal to which it delegates the duty of administering a law.” Juster Bros. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 122
State v. Pearson 633 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Pearson 633 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Juster Bros. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 118 , Willis, d at 184.
In Re the Welfare of the Children of Coats 633 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 2001
Klein Bancorporation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 581 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Klein Bancorporation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 581 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Juster Bros. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 118-19 , (holding statute cannot confer upon administrative body exemption from due process clause); see, e.g., Schumann v. 'Commissioner of Taxation, 312 Minn. 477, 482 , (holding commissioner’s authority to award rent credit on case-by-case basis is in nature of j
Carter v. Olmsted County Housing 574 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Carter v. Olmsted County Housing 574 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
§ 982.552 (e)(l)-(2) (1996) (granting agency discretion to consider extent of participation or culpability of individual family members and exclude only specific parties who break section 8 rules); Juster Bros. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 118 , (stating that exemption of administrative bodies from strict legal rules of evidence and procedure does not grant license to substitute presumptions for facts).
State v. Oanes 543 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Oanes 543 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Juster Bros. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 120 , (quoting Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 480 , 56 S.Ct.
Anker v. Little 541 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Anker v. Little 541 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Juster Bros. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 113-15, 117-120 , 507-08 (1943) (determining that regulations preventing a party from introducing evidence on ultimate issues violate the Due Process Clause).
Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul 538 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul 538 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See also Juster Bros., Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108 , (holding that courts may review administrative actions to determine whether they are in compliance with both statutory and constitutional law).
Matter of Intra-Lata Equal Access 532 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Contel of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 532 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Matter of Intra-Lata Equal Access 532 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Juster Bros. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 119 , (due process requires adequate notice and a fair hearing); (refusal to conduct hearing not a denial of due process), aff'd
Contel of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 532 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Juster Bros. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 119 , (due process requires adequate notice and a fair hearing); (refusal to conduct hearing not a denial of due process), aff'd
Matter of Schmidt 443 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
Matter of Schmidt 443 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
Juster Bros. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 119
Vang v. Commissioner of Public Safety 432 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Shreve v. Department of Economic Security 283 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1979
Shreve v. Department of Economic Security 283 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1979
See, e. g., Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108
Lauer v. Tri-Mont Cooperative Creamery 178 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1970
Lauer v. Tri-Mont Cooperative Creamery 178 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1970
Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108 , 7 N. W. (2d) 501 .
Twin City Candy and Tobacco Co. v. A. Weisman Co. 149 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1967
Twin City Candy and Tobacco Co. v. A. Weisman Co. 149 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1967
Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 117 , 7 N. W. (2d) 501, 507 .
Olson v. Starkey 107 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1961
Olson v. Starkey 107 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1961
Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108 , 7 N. W. (2d) 501 ; State ex rel.
O'NEIL v. Dux 101 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1960
O'NEIL v. Dux 101 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1960
4 Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108 , 7 N. W. (2d) 501 ; State v. Sax, 231 Minn. 1 , 42 N. W. (2d) 680 , 18 A. L. R. (2d) 929; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. United States, 298 U. S. 349 , 56 S. Ct. 797 , 80 L. ed. 1209; cf. State ex rel.
Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 98 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1959
Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 98 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1959
The farthest we have gone in determining the requirements of due process was in Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 119 , 7 N. W. (2d) 501, 507 , where we said: *235 “* * * The requirement of due process means opportunity for a hearing, i. e., opportunity to be present during the taking of testimony or evidence, to know the nature and contents of all evidence adduced in the matter, and to present any relevant contentions and evide
State Ex Rel. Hussman v. Hursh 92 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1958
State Ex Rel. Hussman v. Hursh 92 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1958
ceedings, before an incompetent infant can be placed in custody adequate notice of the hearing thereon and the purpose of such hearing should be served upon the minor either through the natural guardian, or, where the natural guardian be an adversary party, through a duly appointed guardian or representative named by the court for the purpose of the proceeding.” In Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 119 , 7 N. W. (2d) 501, 508 , it was stated: “Notice and an opportunity to be heard a
Anchor Casualty Co. v. BONGARDS CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSN. 91 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1958
Anchor Casualty Co. v. BONGARDS CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSN. 91 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1958
“Juster Brothers vs Christgau, 214 Minn. 108 , at Pages 114, 118, 119, 120 and 121.
Minnesota State Federation of Labor v. Land O' Lakes Creameries, Inc. 79 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1956
Minnesota State Federation of Labor v. Land O' Lakes Creameries, Inc. 79 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1956
w went on to say that ( 243 Minn. 414 , 68 N. W. [2d] 260) “Unless the regulation is interpreted to mean that any product which, in accordance with customary methods of production <md economic feasibility, can be produced at any time during the year is nonseasonal, we feel that it unduly .restricts the meaning of the statute and is, therefore, a nullity,” citing Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108 , 7 N. W. (2d) 501 ; Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 206 Minn. 308 , .
In re Certification of a Bargaining Agent 70 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1955
In re Certification of a Bargaining Agent 70 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1955
As stated in Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 119 , 7 N. W. (2d) 501 , 507: * * The requirement of due process means opportunity for a hearing, i.e., opportunity to be present during the taking of testimony or evidence, to know the nature and contents of all evidence adduced in the matter, and to present any relevant contentions and evidence the party may have.”
Minnesota State Federation of Labor ex rel. Affiliated Organization v. Land O' Lakes Creameries, Inc. 68 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1955
Minnesota State Federation of Labor ex rel. Affiliated Organization v. Land O' Lakes Creameries, Inc. 68 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1955
See, Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108 , 7 N. W. (2d) 501 ; Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 206 Minn. 308 , .
State Ex Rel. Spurck v. Civil Service Board 32 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1948
State Ex Rel. Spurck v. Civil Service Board 32 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1948
* * *” See, Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108 , 7 N. W. (2d) 501 ; Morgan v. United States, 304 U. S. 1 , 58 S. Ct. 773, 999 , 82 L. ed, *248 1129; Londoner v. City and County of Denver, 210 U. S. 373 , 28 S. Ct. 708 , 52 L. ed. 1103.