Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Minn. State Bd. of Health v. City of Brainerd, 241 N.W.2d 624.

35 citing documents.

Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
of Health v. City of Brainerd , –30 (M inn.
Citizens for Rule of Law v. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration 770 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Citizens for Rule of Law v. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration 770 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
of Health by Lawson v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24 , 40 n. 5, , 633 n. 5 (1976).
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24, 36 , (holding that “[wjhether one’s right to bodily integrity is designated a right of personal privacy or not, though, does not alter [the] conclusion that the right, like other constitutional rights, is not absolute”).
Kismet Investors, Inc. v. County of Benton 617 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kismet Investors, Inc. v. County of Benton 617 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
of Health by Lawson v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24, 32
Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24 , appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 803 , 97 S.Ct.
City of St. Paul v. LaClair 466 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
City of St. Paul v. LaClair 466 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24, 41 , -34 (1976), the court held that a governmental subdivision is not a person entitled to due process protections and thus has no constitutional right to a due process hearing.
Houlihan v. Fimon 454 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Houlihan v. Fimon 454 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Minnesota State Board of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24 , (city not barred by previous action in which it was a party, where city did not have “full, free, and untrammeled opportunity” to present facts, and city was only a nominal party in first action), appeal dismissed City of Brainerd v. Minnesota State Board of Health, 429 U.S. 803 , 97 S.Ct.
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
of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24, 30 , appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 803 , 97 S.Ct.
Jarvis v. Levine 418 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1988
Jarvis v. Levine 418 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1988
of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24 , appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 803 , 97 S.Ct.
State v. Gray 413 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1987
State v. Gray 413 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1987
See e.g., Minnesota State Board of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24 , appeal dismissed 429 U.S. 803 , 97 S.Ct.
Moes v. City of St. Paul 402 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1987
Moes v. City of St. Paul 402 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1987
Nor is it within our province to determine the wisdom of or necessity for a legislative enactment.” Minnesota State Board of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24, 32 , (rejecting challenge to Minn. Stat. § 144.145 requiring flouridation of public water supplies).
State v. Clark 375 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Clark 375 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The purpose of the doctrine of standing, however, is to “guarantee that there is a sufficient case or controversy between the parties so that the issue is properly and competently presented to the court.” Twin Ports Convalescent, (quoting Minnesota State Board of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24, 30 , ).
American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council No. 65 v. State, Public Employment Relations Board 372 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council No. 65 v. State, Public Employment Relations Board 372 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“[T]he standing doctrine is primarily designed to guarantee that there is a sufficient case or controversy between the parties so that the issue is properly and competently presented to the court.” Minnesota State Board of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24, 30
State on Behalf of Kremin v. Graham 318 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 1982
Followed State on Behalf of Kremin v. Graham 318 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 1982
We follow the appropriate balancing approach used in Minnesota State Board of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24, 37 , appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 803 , 97 S.Ct.
State v. Vernon 283 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 1979
State v. Vernon 283 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 1979
of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24
Neeland v. Clearwater Memorial Hospital 257 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1977
Neeland v. Clearwater Memorial Hospital 257 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1977
of Health v. City of Brainerd, Minn., where the city claimed that the Minnesota law mandating fluoridation, Minn.St.
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 Health v. City of Brainerd, Minn.
City of Marshall v. Public Employees Retirement Ass'n 246 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1976
City of Marshall v. Public Employees Retirement Ass'n 246 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1976
of Health v. City of Brainerd, 308 Minn. 24 , Blue Earth County Welfare Dept. v. Cabellero, 302 Minn. 329 , Port Authority of City of St.