Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Starkweather v. Blair, 71 N.W.2d 869.

64 citing documents.

Randy Terrell Mayberry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Randy Terrell Mayberry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
An ex post facto law “renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.”
Brad Hammerberg, as Trustee for the Leonard J. and Margaret T. Schubert Irrevocable Trust dated June 23, 2005, … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The supreme court has stated that exhaustion of administrative remedies is futile when “nothing can be accomplished by resort to administrative remedies.”
Andrew Ellis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton 903 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Jepson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Jepson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 387, (stating that “the Legislatures of the several states, shall not pass laws, after a fact done by a subject, or citizen, which 5 shall have relation to such fact, and shall punish him for having done it” (quotation omitted)); Manning, 53
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
Both provisions prohibit laws that “render[ ] an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.” Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 386
Rud v. Fabian 743 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Rud v. Fabian 743 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 389
State v. Reinke 702 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Reinke 702 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
An ex post facto law “renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.” Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 386
State v. Serena 673 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Serena 673 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
3; Minn. Const, art. I, § 11; Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 386 , -80 (1955); review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Grillo 661 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Grillo 661 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
An ex post facto law “renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.” Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 386
State v. Schluter 653 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Schluter 653 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
An ex post facto law “renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it wag committed.” Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 386 , (footnote omitted).
Queen City Construction, Inc. v. City of Rochester 604 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Queen City Construction, Inc. v. City of Rochester 604 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
759, 761 (1892); see also Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 379-80 , -76 (1955) (“the motives of the legislative body in enacting any particular legislation are not the proper subject of judicial inquiry”); (“[Post-session] testimony by individual legislators regarding
Murray v. Cisar 594 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Murray v. Cisar 594 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
An ex post facto law is one that “renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.” Starktweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 386
State v. Manning 532 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Manning 532 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
An ex post facto law “renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.” Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 386 , (footnote omitted).
State v. Harrington 504 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Harrington 504 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
An ex post facto law “renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.” Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 386
Inter Faculty Organization v. Carlson 478 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1991
Inter Faculty Organization v. Carlson 478 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1991
See generally Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371
State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Samarzia 452 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Samarzia 452 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 387 , (quoting Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.)
Bouza v. Gallagher 416 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bouza v. Gallagher 416 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
o. 91, ("the affidavits of individual legislators are not competent to impeach the text of the enrolled bill”); (‘‘[post-session] testimony by individual legislators regarding the legislative intent is inadmissible in *130 construing a statute"); see also Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 379-80 , -76 (1955) ("the motives of the legislative body in enacting any particular legislation are not the proper subject of judicial inquiry”).
In re the Miltona State Bank 414 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In re the Miltona State Bank 414 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
This is improper under Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 379-80 , -76 (1955) (the motives of the legislative body in executing any particular legislation are not the proper subject of judicial inquiry).
Laue v. Production Credit Ass'n of Blooming Prairie 390 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Laue v. Production Credit Ass'n of Blooming Prairie 390 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The dissent's citation of Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371 , is somewhat misplaced.
State v. Howard 360 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Howard 360 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
An ex post facto law is “one which renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.” Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 386
Stearns-Hotzfield v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 360 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Stearns-Hotzfield v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 360 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See also Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 380
Reserve Mining Co. v. State 310 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1981
Reserve Mining Co. v. State 310 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1981
Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371
McCannel v. County of Hennepin 301 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1980
McCannel v. County of Hennepin 301 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1980
446, 450 , 2 L.Ed.2d 479 (1958); Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 394 , Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 206 Minn. 308, 312 , 288 N.W.
Tracy v. Streater/Litton Industries 283 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1979
Tracy v. Streater/Litton Industries 283 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1979
See, Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 395 , Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 108
McKee v. County of Ramsey 245 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1976
McKee v. County of Ramsey 245 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1976
This is so for the reasons that (1) “where nothing can *195 be accomplished by resort to administrative remedies, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply,” Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 395 , and (2) res judicata will not operate as to those claims which were not raised and over which the administrative agency did not have jurisdiction.