Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Pharmacy, 221 N.W.2d 162.

76 citing documents.

Handle With Care, Inc. v. Department of Human Services 393 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Handle With Care, Inc. v. Department of Human Services 393 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The test for standing to challenge a rule under the above language is whether a petitioner has demonstrated “injury in fact.” (citing Snyders Drug Stores v. Minnesota Board of Pharmacy, 301 Minn. 28, 32 , ).
Matter of Elam 393 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Matter of Elam 393 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
of Pharmacy, 301 Minn. 28, 32 , In re Getsug, 290 Minn. 110, 114
Norman v. Refsland 383 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1986
Norman v. Refsland 383 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1986
See, e.g., SST, Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc. v. State Board of Pharmacy, 301 Minn. 28, 34
State v. Clark 375 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Clark 375 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Pharmacy, 301 Minn. 28, 32-33 , -66 (1974) (“injury in fact” concept adopted as test for standing).
Marriage of Murray v. Antell 361 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Murray v. Antell 361 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Snyder’s Drug *469 Stores, Inc., v. Minnesota State Board of Pharmacy, 301 Minn. 28, 34
Costley v. Caromin House, Inc. 313 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1981
Costley v. Caromin House, Inc. 313 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1981
Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Pharmacy, 301 Minn. 28, 31
St. George v. St. George 304 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1981
St. George v. St. George 304 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1981
See Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Pharmacy, 301 Minn. 28, 32
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 404 287 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1980
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 404 287 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1980
SST, INC. v. City of Minneapolis 288 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1979
SST, INC. v. City of Minneapolis 288 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1979
of Pharmacy, 301 Minn. 28
Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardware Ass'n v. State 279 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1979
Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardware Ass'n v. State 279 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1979
of Pharmacy, 301 Minn. 28 , was only the standing of a consumers’ group to intervene in the declaratory judgment proceeding brought pursuant to Minn.St.
McKee v. Likins 261 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 1977
McKee v. Likins 261 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 1977
of Pharm., 301 Minn. 28, 32
Twin Ports Convalescent, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Health 257 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1977
Twin Ports Convalescent, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Health 257 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1977
of Pharm., 301 Minn. 28 , Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 22.21, p. 784 (Supp.1970).
Blue Earth County Welfare Department v. Cabellero 225 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1974
Blue Earth County Welfare Department v. Cabellero 225 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1974
In Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Pharmacy, 301 Minn. 28 , we held that the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group had standing to challenge the drug price advertising regulations of the State Board of Pharmacy.