Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 33 N.W.2d 598.

55 citing documents.

Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
We have also applied the principle under the uniformity clause found in Article 10, Section 1, id., and the Special Legislation clauses now found in Article 12 of the Minnesota Constitution
Mitchell v. Steffen 504 N.W.2d 198 Minn. 1993
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of Hennepin 478 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1991
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of Hennepin 478 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1991
Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 197 , Loew v. Hagerle Bros., 226 Minn. 485, 489
State v. Russell 477 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1991
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of Hennepin 451 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1990
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of Hennepin 451 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1990
Paul v. Fisher, 269 Minn. 276 , Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485
In Re Tveten 402 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1987
In Re Tveten 402 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1987
1902 , 80 L.Ed.2d 452 (1984); Loew v. Hagerle, 226 Minn. 485
Metropolitan Rehabilitation Services, Inc. v. Westberg 386 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1986
Metropolitan Rehabilitation Services, Inc. v. Westberg 386 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1986
Moreover, under the allegedly “more stringent” Minnesota equal protection review, in Loew v. Hagerle Bros., 226 Minn. 485 , the statutes and the rules likewise pass constitutional muster.
AFSCME Councils 6, 14, 65 & 96, AFL-CIO v. Sundquist 338 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1983
AFSCME Councils 6, 14, 65 & 96, AFL-CIO v. Sundquist 338 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1983
We first applied this three-part test in Loew v. Hagerle Bros., 226 Minn. 485, 489 , in the context of a challenge brought under the special legislation prohibition of the Minnesota Constitution, Minn. Const, art. XII, § 1.
Neeland v. Clearwater Memorial Hospital 257 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1977
Neeland v. Clearwater Memorial Hospital 257 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1977
Paul v. Fisher, 269 Minn. 276 , Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485
City of Marshall v. Public Employees Retirement Ass'n 246 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1976
City of Marshall v. Public Employees Retirement Ass'n 246 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1976
Paul v. Fisher, 269 Minn. 276 , and Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485
Blue Earth County Welfare Department v. Cabellero 225 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1974
Blue Earth County Welfare Department v. Cabellero 225 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1974
238 Minn. 63 , Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485
Village of Burnsville v. Onischuk 222 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 1974
Village of Burnsville v. Onischuk 222 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 1974
See, Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485, 488 , Larson v. Freeborn County, 267 Minn. 383
Elwell v. County of Hennepin 221 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1974
Elwell v. County of Hennepin 221 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1974
upon them except where necessary to protect the private interests of the individual asserting invalidity and peculiarly and particularly affected thereby.” However, the court added ( 181 Minn. 481 , ): “There is found among the authorities a well recognized exception to the foregoing rule when the rights of the state or the public interest are involved.” In Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485 , we found a sufficient public interest to compel review of the constitutionality of legislation upo
Schwartz v. Talmo 205 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1973
Schwartz v. Talmo 205 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1973
Hamlin v. Ladd, 217 Minn. 249 , Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485
Mower County Board of Commissioners v. Board of Trustees of Public Employees Retirement Ass'n 136 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1965
Mower County Board of Commissioners v. Board of Trustees of Public Employees Retirement Ass'n 136 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1965
We so reached constitutional questions in Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485 , 33 N. W. (2d) 598 , where an injured workman was attempting to recover benefits under a certain workmen’s compensation statute and the custodian of the special compensation fund refused to grant them on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional.
PORT AUTHORITY OF CITY OF ST. PAUL v. Fisher 132 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1964
PORT AUTHORITY OF CITY OF ST. PAUL v. Fisher 132 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1964
In Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485, 488 , 33 N. W. (2d) 598, 600 , where the state treasurer, as custodian of a special compensation fund, contested payments out of the fund to an employee on the ground that L. 1947, c. 247, authorizing such payment, was unconstitutional, we held: “* * * Although ordinarily a public officer, in the absence of prejudice
Fabio v. City of St. Paul 126 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1964
Fabio v. City of St. Paul 126 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1964
4 State v. Broden, 181 Minn. 341, 346 , ; Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485, 488 , 33 N. W. (2d) 598, 601 .
Williams v. Rolfe 114 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1962
Williams v. Rolfe 114 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1962
The same is true of Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485 , 33 N. W. (2d) 598 , where the act involved was drawn to extend benefits of our compensation laws to one person, and State ex rel.
Atkins v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 104 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1960
Atkins v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 104 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1960
Town of Bridgie v. County of Koochiching, 227 Minn. 320 , 35 N. W. (2d) 537 ; Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485 , 33 N. W. (2d) 598 .
Wichelman v. Messner 83 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1957
Wichelman v. Messner 83 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1957
Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485 , 33 N. W. (2d) 598 ; State v. Marcus, 210 Minn. 576 , ; State v. LeFebvre, 174 Minn. 248 , ; General Mills, Inc. v. Div. of Employment and Security, 224 Minn. 306 , 28 N. W. (2d) 847 .
City of St. Paul v. Dalsin 71 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1955
City of St. Paul v. Dalsin 71 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1955
16 State v. Pehrson, 205 Minn. 573 , , 123 A. L. R. 1045; Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485 , 33 N. W. (2d) 598 .
State v. International Harvester Co. 63 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1954
State v. International Harvester Co. 63 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1954
Co. 126 Minn. 286 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 412; Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485 , 33 N. W. (2d) 598 ; State v. Pehrson, 205 Minn. *375 573, , 123 A. L. R. 1045; Eldred v. Div. of Employment and Security, 209 Minn. 58 , ; Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co. 301 U. S. 495 , 57 S. Ct. 868 , 81 L. ed. 1245, 109 A. L. R. 1327; General Mills, Inc. v. Div. of Employmen
Kaljuste v. Hennepin County Sanatorium Commission 61 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1953
Arens v. Village of Rogers 61 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 1953
Kaljuste v. Hennepin County Sanatorium Commission 61 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1953
Co. 126 Minn. 286 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 412; Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485 , 33 N. W. (2d) 598 ; State v. Pehrson, 205 Minn. *418 573 , , 123 A. L. R. 1045; Eldred v. Div. of Employment and Security, 209 Minn. 58 , ; Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co. 301 U. S. 495 , 57 S. Ct. 868 , 81 L. ed. 1245, 109 A. L. R. 1327; General Mills, Inc. v. Div. of Employme
Arens v. Village of Rogers 61 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 1953
See, Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485 , 33 N. W. (2d) 598 ; Hamlin v. Ladd, 217 Minn. 249 , 14 N. W. (2d) 396 .
Bricelyn School District No. 132 v. Board of County Commissioners 55 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1952
Bricelyn School District No. 132 v. Board of County Commissioners 55 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1952
Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485 , 33 N. W. (2d) 598 ; see, State ex rel.
City of Duluth v. Northland Greyhound Lines 52 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1952
City of Duluth v. Northland Greyhound Lines 52 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1952
Louisville G. & E. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U. S. 32, 37 , 48 S. Ct. 423 , 72 L. ed. 770, quoted in National Tea Co. v. State, 205 Minn. 443 , .” For later cases, see General Mills, Inc. v. Division of Employment and Security, 224 Minn. 306 , 28 N. W. (2d) 847 ; Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 226 Minn. 485 , 33 N. W. (2d) 598 ; Anderson v. City of St.
State Ex Rel. Paff v. Kelley 50 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1952