Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sharood v. Hatfield, 210 N.W.2d 275.

48 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Denial of Line of Duty Death Benefits for Dallas Edeburn. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
see also Minn. Stat. § 480.06 (2024) (“In all cases decided by the [supreme] court, it shall give its decision in writing .
Sela Investments, Ltd LLP v. J. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Sela Investments, Ltd LLP v. J. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
One aspect of judicial power is the inherent authority “to make the final decision.” (striking down statute requiring attorney fees paid to be diverted into state’s general fund rather than into separate fund for use in administration of bar because statute infringed on judiciary’s “inherent power to regulate the practice of law”); see also Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor
Original Jurisdiction Per Curiam Minn. 2022
(taking judicial notice of “our own past orders and records”).
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The Minnesota Supreme Court syllabi are “written by the court.” see also Minn. Stat. § 480.06 (2020) (“In all cases decided by the [supreme] court, it shall give its decision in writing .
In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct in Panel Case No. 44387 932 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2019
In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct in Panel Case No. 44387 932 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2019
Sharood v. Hatfield , 296 Minn. 416 , , 279-80 (1973).
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Michael John RIEHM, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0296570 883 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 2016
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Michael John RIEHM, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0296570 883 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 2016
See Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 424, see also Minn. Const. art. III, § 1 (describing the separation of powers).
State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
see also Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 422-25 , d *664 275, 279-80 (1973).
State Ex Rel. Sviggum v. Hanson 732 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State Ex Rel. Sviggum v. Hanson 732 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 423 , (cautioning courts to exercise restraint in dispute over “what is a legislative prerogative and what is a judicial function”).
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
This due respect notwithstanding, “courts have the power to ‘determine what is judicial and what is legislative; and if it is a judicial function that the legislative act purports to exercise, [this court] must not hesitate to preserve what is essentially a judicial function.’ ” , 160 n. 7 (Minn.2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 423 , ).
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
Nothing in this opinion should be read to diminish our longstanding principle that courts have the power to "determine what is judicial and what is legislative; and if it is a *161 judicial function that the legislative act purports to exercise, [this court] must not hesitate to preserve what is essentially a judicial function.” Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 423
In Re Rothenberg 676 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 2004
In Re Rothenberg 676 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 2004
Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 422-23
State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
We are mindful that “[w]e have occasionally permitted a statute to stand as a matter of comity, even where the legislature has encroached somewhat upon a judicial function, so long as the statute does not conflict with this court’s inherent authority to make the final decision.” see Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 424 , (noting that “this court has acquiesced in legislative acts prescribing administrative procedures for admission and discipline of attorneys as long as such acts did not usurp
In Re Conservatorship of Riebel 625 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 2001
In Re Conservatorship of Riebel 625 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 2001
795, 797 (1940); see Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 424
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 423
Irwin v. Surdyk's Liquor 599 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1999
Irwin v. Surdyk's Liquor 599 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1999
In Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416 , we struck down as unconstitutional a statute requiring attorney registration fees to be diverted into the state’s general fund rather than into a separate fund for use in the administration of the bar.
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 588 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 588 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1999
"The power to make the necessary rules and regulations governing the bar was intended to be vested exclusively in the supreme court, free from the dangers of encroachment either by the legislative or executive branches.” Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 425
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 425 , (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
State v. Johnson 514 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1994
State v. Johnson 514 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1994
For example, 'in Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416 , this court addressed a legislative act intended to regulate the practice of law, over which the court has inherent power: It is true that this court has acquiesced in legislative acts prescribing administrative procedures for admission and discipline of attorneys as long as such acts did not u
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Jim Lupient Oldsmobile Co. 509 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1993
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Jim Lupient Oldsmobile Co. 509 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1993
See Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 424-25 , -80 (1973) (noting that the court has “acquiesced in legislative acts prescribing administrative procedures for admission and discipline of attorneys as long as such acts do not usurp the right of the Court to make the final decision.”) See also Maynard E. Pirsig and Randall M. Tietjen, Co
Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. Turnham 486 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1992
Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. Turnham 486 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1992
In Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 425 , we held that, “[T]he power to make the necessary rules and regulations governing the bar was intended to be vested exclusively in the supreme court, free from the dangers of encroachment either by the legislative or executive branches.” Id.
MacK v. City of Minneapolis 333 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1983
MacK v. City of Minneapolis 333 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1983
Relators place strong reliance on Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416 , in which the legislature purported to amend the rules of professional responsibility to require the Board of Law Examiners to use certain tests and to transfer attorney registration fees from a special trust account — which the legislature had previously assured would “never cancel” — to the g
State v. Willis 332 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1983
State v. Willis 332 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1983
Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 423
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 person or persons belonging to or constituting one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others except in the instances expressly provided in this constitution.” This duty and power were fully discussed in the recent decision of Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 425 , in which we stated: “The power to regulate the practice of law rests with the judiciary.
Clerk of Court's Comp. for LC v. LC Com'rs 241 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1976
In re Clerk of Lyon County Courts' Compensation 241 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1976
In re Clerk of Lyon County Courts' Compensation 241 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1976
Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416 , (disposition of bar fees); In re Petition for Integration of the Bar of Minnesota, 216 Minn. 195 , Cowern v. Nelson, 207 Minn. 642 , (statute regulating general practice of law); In re Disbarment *178 of Tracy, 197 Minn. 35 , , 267 N.
Clerk of Court's Comp. for LC v. LC Com'rs 241 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1976
Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416 , (disposition of bar fees); In re Petition for Integration of the Bar of Minnesota, 216 Minn. 195 , Cowern v. Nelson, 207 Minn. 642 , 290 N.W.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by