Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Reps, 223 N.W.2d 780.

30 citing documents.

  • Braylock v. Jesson 819 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
  • Braylock v. Jesson 819 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
    1272 , 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977) (explaining that one party’s presentation of a “prima facie case” shifts the “burden of going forward” to the other party); State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38, 50 , (same); see also Behnke v. President Bd.
  • State v. Holmes 787 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Holmes 787 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38, 46 , -86 (1974).
  • State v. Bren 704 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Bren 704 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Respondent counters that because the 2000 statutory amendments specifically removed fiduciary liability as an element, the statute is now unconstitutional because it no longer meets the requirements of State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38
  • State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    See State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38, 42 , -84 (1974) (stating that “[wjhile [review without an order] may not have conferred appellate jurisdiction in the traditional sense, we think it is nevertheless sufficiently appellate in nature, regardless of a trial court ruling, to warrant our determination.”).
  • State v. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    make[s] it fair to call on the defendant to produce evidence.” State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38, 51 , -89 (1974) (quotation omitted).
  • Duluth Superior Erection, Inc. v. Concrete Restorers, Inc. 665 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Duluth Superior Erection, Inc. v. Concrete Restorers, Inc. 665 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    In 1974, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38, 46 , -86 (1974), that Minn. *537 Stat. § 514.02 implicitly established a fiduciary relationship.
  • State v. Larson 605 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Larson 605 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2000
    In State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38 , we reviewed the prosecution of a contractor under Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Orsello 529 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Orsello 529 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    (citing *484 State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38, 46 , ).
  • City of Duluth v. Sarette 283 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1979
  • City of Duluth v. Sarette 283 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1979
    Accord, State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38 , Anderson v. City of St.
  • State v. Kjeldahl 278 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Kjeldahl 278 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1979
    State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38, 46
  • State v. Wicks 258 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Wicks 258 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 1977
    2 State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38
  • State v. Dille 258 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Dille 258 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1977
    See, also, State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38
  • State v. Filipovic 251 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Filipovic 251 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1977
    State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38
  • State v. Knox 250 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Knox 250 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 1976
    (3 ed.) § 1700, and State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38
  • State v. Harris 244 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Harris 244 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1976
    hibition of speed shall be unreasonable squealing or screeching sounds emitted by the tires or the throwing of sand or gravel by the tires of said vehicle or both.” Section 134.01(5) creates a prima facie presumption which passes constitutional muster if it is based upon a “* * * rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact which *399 it purports to presume * * State v. Reps, 302 Minn. 38, 51