Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lee v. Delmont, 36 N.W.2d 530.

133 citing documents.

Aaron Olson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Issues which have no existence other than in the realm of future possibility are purely hypothetical and are not justiciable.”
Paul Hansmeier, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
It is well established that “[i]ssues which have no existence other than in the realm of future possibility are purely hypothetical and are not justiciable.”
Peter K Butler v. Shari Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Peter K Butler v. Shari Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Issues which have no existence other than in the realm of future possibility are purely hypothetical and are not justiciable” because “[n]either the ripe nor the ripening seeds of a controversy are present.”
Drake Snell v. Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, in his official capacity, ... 6 N.W.3d 458 Minn. 2024
Drake Snell v. Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, in his official capacity, ... 6 N.W.3d 458 Minn. 2024
In Lee v. Delmont, we stated that the Legislature “cannot delegate purely legislative power to any other body, person, board, or commission.”
Deborah Jane Clapp v. Rochelle Cox, in her official capacity as Interim Superintendent of Minneapolis ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Deborah Jane Clapp v. Rochelle Cox, in her official capacity as Interim Superintendent of Minneapolis ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
23, 2008); (noting that a party who challenges a law must show that it “is, or is about to be, applied to [the complaining party’s] disadvantage”).
Glen Brazier, individually and as owner of Wagon Wheel Ridge, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Issues that are purely hypothetical are not justiciable.” Werlich, d at 363 (quotation omitted); (stating that hypothetical issues that “have no existence other than in the realm of future possibility” are not justiciable).
Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The Minnesota Supreme Court has instructed that the legislature’s power to delegate is not violated so long as “the law furnishes a reasonably clear policy or standard of action which controls and guides the administrative officers in ascertaining the operative facts to which the law applies.” (stating that “[i]t is well settled that the legislature has the power to delegate to an administrative agency the right to promulgate such reasonable rules and regulations as may be necessary to accomplis
Kelly Schneider, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The nondelegation principle has its roots in the doctrine of the separation of powers and holds that the legislature “cannot delegate purely legislative power to any other body, person, board, or commission.” (deciding that administrative rules relating to the qualifications of barbers did not represent an unconstitutional delegation of power).
Minn. 2021
Deklin Darren Goeden, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Issues which have no exis tence other than in the realm of future possibility are purely hypothetical and are not justiciable.”
Jodi D. Campbell, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
ution.” Separation-of-powers violations can result if the judiciary improperly exercises a “legislative function” or the legislature improperly exercises a “judicial function.” See Sanchez v. State , (holding that the legislature did not unconstitutionally usurp a judicial function when it added time limits to postconviction relief statute); Lee v. Delmont , (explaining that the legislature “cannot delegate purely legislative power to any other body, person, board, or commi ssion”).
Free Minnesota Small Business Coalition, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Under the nondelegation doctrine, the legislature “cannot delegate purely legislative power to any other body, person, board, or commission.”
Minn. 2021
show that the st atute is, or is about to be, applied to his disadvantage.”
Town of West Lakeland, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Issues involving only hypothetical possibilities are not justiciable because “[n]either the ripe nor the ripening seeds of a controversy are present.”
Sara Solomonson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(holding that “issues which have no existence other than in the realm of the future possibility are purely hypothetical and are not justiciable”).
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Antwone Ford, Minn. 2019
“Issues which have no existence other than in the realm of future possibility are pu rely hypothetical and are not justiciable.” Lee v. Delmont
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing , , 337 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted); see Lee v. Delmont , 228 Minn. 101 , 110-11, , 537 (1949) (litigant challenging constitutionality of a statute must show that the statute "is, or is about to be, applied to his disadvantage").
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 902 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 902 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Because Harstad’s application has not been approved or disapproved, the precise issue is ripeness, which requires that Harstad must show that the city’s authority to impose the MRA is not merely hypothetical or a “future possibility.” Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 110
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis 891 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2017
In the MATTER OF the Application for Licensure of Nadeen GRIEPENTROG 888 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the MATTER OF the Application for Licensure of Nadeen GRIEPENTROG 888 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
cannot delegate purely legislative power to any other body, person, board, or commission.” Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 112, d 530, 538 (1949).
Anthony Hernandez v. Minnesota Board of Teaching Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anthony Hernandez v. Minnesota Board of Teaching Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If an issue involves only a hypothetical possibility, then the issue is not justiciable because “[n]either the ripe nor the ripening seeds of a controversy are present.” Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 110
Boardwalk Bar & Grill, LLC, Relator v. East Grand Forks City Council Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Boardwalk Bar & Grill, LLC, Relator v. East Grand Forks City Council Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 110
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
Rochon Corp. v. City of St. Paul 831 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Rochon Corp. v. City of St. Paul 831 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The resolution of "[i]ssues which have no existence other than in the realm of future possibility are purely hypothetical and are not justiciable.” Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 110
Schowalter v. State 822 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2012
Schowalter v. State 822 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2012
We have recognized that “[ijssues which have no existence other than in the realm of future possibility are purely hypothetical and are not justiciable.” Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 110
Limmer v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
In Re the Civil Commitment of Travis 767 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Civil Commitment of Travis 767 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
If an issue involves only a hypothetical possibility, then the issue is not justiciable because “[n]either the ripe nor the ripening seeds of a controversy are present.” Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 110
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 765 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 765 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The legislature “cannot delegate purely legislative power to any other body, person, board, or commission.” Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 112
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 731 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 731 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 110 , (“Issues which have no existence other than in the realm of future possibility are purely hypothetical and are not justiciable.
West St. Paul Federation of Teachers v. Independent School District No. 197 713 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
West St. Paul Federation of Teachers v. Independent School District No. 197 713 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
cannot delegate purely legislative power to any other body, person, board, or commission.” Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 112
Rukavina v. Pawlenty 684 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Rukavina v. Pawlenty 684 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 112-13
Alliance for Metropolitan Stability v. Metropolitan Council 671 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Alliance for Metropolitan Stability v. Metropolitan Council 671 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 111
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002