Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Price v. Amdal, 256 N.W.2d 461.

42 citing documents.

Minn. 2021
See Price v. Amdal , (holding that Minn. Stat. § 602.04 was “an unconstitutional denial of equal protection to those survivors against whom a wrongful -death action is brought ” following passage of the comparative fault statute because it unduly favored plaintiffs when deciding the question of whether and how much t
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
of Barber Exam’rs, Dependents of Ondler v. Peace Officers Benefit Fund , Price v. Amdal
Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 773 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 773 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
choice of each law enforcement officer which test will be provided” and that this choice is arbitrary, depending only on “the fancy of the arresting officer or the local jurisdiction.” He contends that the arbitrary nature of the determination whether a person’s alcohol concentration is tested by blood, urine
Gordon v. Microsoft Corp. 645 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2002
Gordon v. Microsoft Corp. 645 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2002
See, e.g., Emme, d at 179 (noting the availability of discretionary review in “rare” cases); , 462 n. 1 (Minn.1977) (granting discretionary review because of “troublesome and vexing question”).
Olson v. Ford Motor Co. 558 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
Olson v. Ford Motor Co. 558 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
(construing equal protection as satisfied when legislative distinctions are fashioned on some reasonable basis).
Larson v. New Richland Care Center 538 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Larson v. New Richland Care Center 538 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -80 (Minn.1988); , 462 n. 1 (Minn.1977).
Anker v. Little 541 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Anker v. Little 541 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(construing equal protection to require that distinctions have a reasonable basis).
Ruzic v. Commissioner of Public Safety 455 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Ruzic v. Commissioner of Public Safety 455 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Clark v. Monnens 436 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Clark v. Monnens 436 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Urie 405 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1987
Johnson v. Urie 405 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1987
103.03(h) has been interpreted to permit certification only when an order denies a summary judgment motion ( , 463 n. 3 (Minn. 1977)), the court of appeals addressed the issue raised as an appeal from a summary judgment.
Johnson v. Urie 394 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. Urie 394 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Florenzano v. Olson 387 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1986
Florenzano v. Olson 387 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1986
No. 709, (nonabsolute statutory liability); (wrongful death).
Koski v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 386 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Matter of Harhut 385 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1986
Matter of Harhut 385 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1986
2382, 2394 , 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982)
Hanson v. Roe 373 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hanson v. Roe 373 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Elias v. City of St. Paul 350 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Elias v. City of St. Paul 350 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Munnell 344 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Munnell 344 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Schwartz v. Taimo, 295 Minn. 356, 362 , , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 803 , 94 S.Ct.
Naylor v. Minnesota Daily 342 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 1984
State v. Nordstrom 331 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1983
State v. Nordstrom 331 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1983
Schwartz v. Talmo, 295 Minn. 356, 362 , , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 803 , 94 S.Ct.
Wegan v. Village of Lexington 309 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1981
Wegan v. Village of Lexington 309 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1981
Leer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railway Co. 308 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1981
Leer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railway Co. 308 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1981
Kossak v. Stalling 277 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1979
Kossak v. Stalling 277 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1979
XIV, § 1, provides that no statute shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The purpose of this constitutional provision is to “ * * * secure to every person the right to be free from arbitrary and intentional discrimination.”
Winona National & Savings Bank v. Dahlen Transport Co. 256 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1977
Winona National & Savings Bank v. Dahlen Transport Co. 256 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1977
We are compelled to conclude that our decision in Price v. Amdal, Minn., , filed herewith, requires a reversal of the trial court’s decision, and we hold that the trustee’s action is not barred.