Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709, 215 N.W.2d 814.

41 citing documents.

In re Calm Waters Cannabis Co., et al., Petitioners, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
No. 709, (explaining that “courts have the inherent power to amend, modify, or vacate an injunction where the circumstances have changed and it is just and equitable to do so”); Halverson 15 Petitioners acknowledged at oral argument that they can still seek to intervene in the underlying actions and in
Bruber Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a Persolvent, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Louis Cnty., 298 Minn. 306, 327–28
Lorix v. Crompton Corp. 736 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2007
Lorix v. Crompton Corp. 736 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2007
Louis County, 298 Minn. 306, 314
Rukavina v. Pawlenty 684 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Rukavina v. Pawlenty 684 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See Channel 10, Inc. v. ISD No. 709, 298 Minn. 306 , (holding that individuals within group of persons whom open-meeting statute was designed to protect, by assuring that meeting of school boards would be open, have standing in action to restrain school board from violating open-meeting law).
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Allina Health System 679 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Allina Health System 679 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 314 , ).
Free Press v. County of Blue Earth 677 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Free Press v. County of Blue Earth 677 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 323 , (declining to adopt blanket exception to open meeting law for attorney-client privilege).
Conant v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P. 603 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Conant v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P. 603 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 312
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Boyne 578 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1998
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 551 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1996
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 551 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1996
Louis County, 298 Minn. 306, 314 , Twin Ports Convalescent, Inc. v. Minnesota State Bd.
Jacobson v. County of Goodhue 539 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Jacobson v. County of Goodhue 539 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Louis County, 298 Minn. 306, 327-28
Vern Reynolds Construction, Inc. v. City of Champlin 539 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Vern Reynolds Construction, Inc. v. City of Champlin 539 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 313
Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Saint Paul 435 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Saint Paul 435 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
as (1) “to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning * * * decisions or to detect improper influences,” Lindahl v. Independent School District No. 306, 270 Minn. 164, 167 , (2) “to assure the public’s right to be informed,” Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 313 , and (3) “to afford the public an opportunity to present its views” in matters of public concern, Sullivan
The Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota 432 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota 432 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709, 298 Minn. 306
H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Corp. 420 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Corp. 420 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Louis County, 298 Minn. 306 , (allowing television station to sue to enforce civil open meeting statute); Phillips v. Brandt, 231 Minn. 423 , 43 N.W.
Marriage of Varner v. Varner 400 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Varner v. Varner 400 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 327
Itasca County Board of Commissioners v. Olson 372 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Itasca County Board of Commissioners v. Olson 372 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
re: (1) “to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning board decisions or to detect improper influences,” Lindahl v. Independent School District No. 306, 270 Minn. 164, 167 , (2) “to assure the public’s right to be informed,” Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 313 , and (3) “to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the board,” Sullivan v. Credit River
Merz v. Leitch 342 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1984
Merz v. Leitch 342 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1984
re “(1) ‘to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning board decisions or to detect improper influences,’ Lindahl v. Independent School District No. 306, 270 Minn. 164, 167 , (2) ‘to assure the public’s right to be informed,’ Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 313 , and (3) ‘to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the board,’ Sullivan v. Credit River
St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools 332 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1983
St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools 332 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1983
re: (1) “to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning board decisions or to detect improper influences,” Lindahl v. Independent School District No. 306, 270 Minn. 164, 167 , (2) “to assure the public’s right to be informed,” Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 313 , and (3) “to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the board,” Sullivan v. Credit River
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Bennett 321 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1982
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Bennett 321 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1982
In Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709, 298 Minn. 306 , we held that meetings of a school board with its labor negotiators to discuss pending negotiations and to instruct the negotiators as to their authority were not excluded from the Open Meeting Law.
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority ex rel. City of Minneapolis 251 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1976
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority ex rel. City of Minneapolis 251 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1976
No. 709, 298 Minn. 306 , we analyzed the need for recognizing a sweeping exception to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, including instances in which a public body attempts to discuss pending litigation with its attorney without public notification or participation.
Johnson Bros. Wholesale Liquor Co. v. United Farm Workers National Union 241 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1976
Johnson Bros. Wholesale Liquor Co. v. United Farm Workers National Union 241 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1976
No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 325

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by