Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 221 N.W.2d 538.

60 citing documents.

City of Blaine Police Department, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
ervene.”3 The Minnesota Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of timely notice to the attorney general when a party raises a constitutional challenge: “The clear intent of the rule is to provide notice to the attorney general of an attack upon the constitutionality of a legislative act so that he may have the opportunity to defend its constitutionality.” 2 By order, this court construed Luedtke’s appeal as taken from the April 18, 2025 order granting an extension of the ERPO even though Lu
Jodi D. Campbell, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. B., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Elwell v. Hennepin County , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[The Attorney General] cannot be expected to have knowledge of every proceeding in which any subdivision of the state represented by a county attorney may raise a constitutional issue as to a statute.”); (reasoning that the county was not an agent of the state “for this purpose” where the county challenged constitutionality of statute and failed to give notice to attorney general).
In re the Matter of: Sharon K. Fostervold, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(holding that lack of notice to attorney general does not bar reviewing court from considering constitutional issue if the issue was adequately raised and considered at the district court and the appellate record is sufficient for review).
, A18-1155 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 538, 545 (Minn. 1974) (holding that lack of notice to at torney general does not absolutely bar reviewing court from considering constitutional issue); d 212, 21 5 n.1 (Minn. App. 1993) (stating that failure to notify attorney general limits constitutional challenge to “as applied challenge”)
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Raisanen v. County of Hennepin 678 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2004
Raisanen v. County of Hennepin 678 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2004
at 292 (quoting Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63, 66 , ).
Marzitelli v. City of Little Canada 582 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1998
Marzitelli v. City of Little Canada 582 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1998
See Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63 , 72 fn.
In Re Alternative Minimum Tax Refund Cases 546 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1996
In Re Alternative Minimum Tax Refund Cases 546 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1996
As this court has stated, “[i]f the statute here involved does not violate one, it does not violate the other.” Elwell v. Hennepin County, 301 Minn. 63, 75
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 502 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1993
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 502 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1993
See, e.g., Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63, 70-71
Barron v. Hennepin County 488 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1992
Barron v. Hennepin County 488 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1992
We identified the “essence” of the legislation in Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63, 66 , to be *292 [T]hat farmland, if it meets the requirements of the act, will be valued for tax purposes solely with reference to its agricultural use, which may not necessarily be the same value it would have if other potential uses for the land were considered by the assessor.
GN Danavox, Inc. v. Starkey Laboratories, Inc. 476 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
GN Danavox, Inc. v. Starkey Laboratories, Inc. 476 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63, 73
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
This public interest, we later said, must be “substantial.” See Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63, 70
In re Conservatorship of Bauer 451 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In re Conservatorship of Bauer 451 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Elwell v. Hennepin County, 301 Minn. 63, 74 , (citations omitted), quoted in (emphasis in the original).
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. 432 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1988
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. 432 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1988
As we said in Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63, 73 , it is extremely doubtful we would hold a statute unconstitutional if the attorney general had not been properly notified.
Qualle v. County of Beltrami 420 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Qualle v. County of Beltrami 420 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
24.04; Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63, 70-71 , 221 N.W.
Lund v. County of Hennepin 403 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 1987
Lund v. County of Hennepin 403 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 1987
In Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63 , this court addressed the validity of Minn.Stat.
Sterling Custom Homes Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue 391 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 1986
Specialized Tours, Inc. v. Hagen 392 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1986
Sterling Custom Homes Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue 391 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 1986
Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63, 75 , (state constitutional provisions regarding taxation no more restrictive upon legislative power to tax or classify than is equal protection clause of 14th Amendment of United States Constitution).
Specialized Tours, Inc. v. Hagen 392 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1986
See Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63
Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. County of Hennepin 384 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1986
Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. County of Hennepin 384 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1986
d at 917 ; Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63, 74 , Cold Spring Granite Co., 271 Minn. at 466 , d at 787 .
Hegenes v. State 328 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1983
Hegenes v. State 328 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1983
This court will not disturb the legislative determination unless the classification is clearly arbitrary and has no reasonable basis.” (Quoting In re Taxes on Property of Cold Spring Granite Co., 271 Minn. 460, 466 , and Elwell v. Hennepin County, 301 Minn. 63, 74 , )
McCannel v. County of Hennepin 301 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1980
McCannel v. County of Hennepin 301 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1980
For example, in Elwell v. Hennepin County, 301 Minn. 63 , we upheld a land classification system for tax purposes which permitted certain real estate devoted to agricultural use to be valued without reference to nonagricultural factors.
Reiss Greenhouses, Inc. v. County of Hennepin 290 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1980
Reiss Greenhouses, Inc. v. County of Hennepin 290 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1980
The purpose and intent of § 273.111 was further expanded upon by this court in Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63, 65 , as follows: The green acres statute provides that certain real estate devoted to agricultural use is entitled to be valued for real estate tax purposes on a basis which does not consider nonagricultural factors.
Contos v. Herbst 278 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1979
Contos v. Herbst 278 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1979
See Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63
Fingerhut Products Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 258 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1977
Fingerhut Products Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 258 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1977
See, Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63 , Rathbun v. W. T. Grant Co. 300 Minn. 223
Price v. Amdal 256 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1977
Price v. Amdal 256 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1977
Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63
Schumann v. Commissioner of Taxation 253 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1977
Schumann v. Commissioner of Taxation 253 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1977
Elwell v. County of Hennepin, 301 Minn. 63 , In re Taxes on Property of Cold Spring Granite Co. 1271 Minn. 460