Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Twin Ports Convalescent, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Health, 257 N.W.2d 343.

44 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Minnesota Racing Commission's Approval of Running Aces Casino, Hotel & Racetrack's Request to … Minn. 2026
In the Matter of the Minnesota Racing Commission's Approval of Running Aces Casino, Hotel & Racetrack's Request to … Minn. 2026
of Health, d 343, 346 (Minn. 1977).
Request to Approve Issuance of State Taconite Iron Ore Mining Leases in Itasca County to Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Request to Approve Issuance of State Taconite Iron Ore Mining Leases in Itasca County to Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
of Health, (concluding that business had standing to challenge decision to issue license to competitor when a statute protected existing services from competition).
In the Matter of Trade Secret Designations of 2019 Cogeneration and Small Power Production Reports. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
of Health , ), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Webb Golden Valley, LLC, Evelyn Thomson v. State of Minnesota, Global One Golden Valley, LLC, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Webb Golden Valley, LLC, Evelyn Thomson v. State of Minnesota, Global One Golden Valley, LLC, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2014
of Health, ), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Medical Staff of Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center v. Avera Marshall 836 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Medical Staff of Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center v. Avera Marshall 836 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
of Health, (quotation omitted).
In Re the City of Redwood Falls 756 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the City of Redwood Falls 756 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
of Health, (“even longstanding administrative procedures are not binding if erroneous or contrary to plain meaning”).
Hanson v. Woolston 701 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Hanson v. Woolston 701 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
of Health, (recognizing purpose of standing doctrine is to guarantee sufficient controversy between parties so issue is properly presented to court).
MINNESOTA SCHOOL BD. v. Dahl 566 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
MINNESOTA SCHOOL BD. v. Dahl 566 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
of Health, (purpose of standing doctrine is to guarantee sufficient controversy between parties, so that issues may be properly presented to court).
Miller-Lagro v. Northern States Power Co. 566 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Miller-Lagro v. Northern States Power Co. 566 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
of Health, (examining parties’ conduct as evidence of their own interpretations of law’s requirements).
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 551 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1996
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 551 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1996
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Eden Square Shopping Center Partnership 524 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Eden Square Shopping Center Partnership 524 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
of Health, (underlying purpose of standing doctrine is to guarantee there is sufficient case or controversy between parties so that issue is competently presented to court).
State v. Knutson 523 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re the License Application of Rochester Ambulance Service 500 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re the License Application of Rochester Ambulance Service 500 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Tessman Seed & Chemical Co. v. State 467 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Tessman Seed & Chemical Co. v. State 467 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
of Health, Envall v. Indep.
Schmidt v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Schmidt v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1989
Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1989
North Memorial Medical Center v. Minnesota Department of Health 423 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
North Memorial Medical Center v. Minnesota Department of Health 423 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Twin Ports Convalescent, (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).
Hiawatha Aviation of Rochester, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Health 389 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1986
Hiawatha Aviation of Rochester, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Health 389 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1986
§ 144.802 are fully discussed in Twin Ports Convalescent
Hiawatha Aviation of Rochester, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Health 375 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hiawatha Aviation of Rochester, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Health 375 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The statement is taken from Twin Ports Convalescent, a case dealing with a license application for a land ambulance service in competition with two other operating services, one of which was subsidized by the City of Duluth.
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 , ).
Dufresne v. American National Bank & Trust Co. 374 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dufresne v. American National Bank & Trust Co. 374 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
MINNESOTA VALLEY BREEDERS ASS'N v. Brandt 348 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
MINNESOTA VALLEY BREEDERS ASS'N v. Brandt 348 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
of Health, : [T]he underlying purpose of the doctrine of standing and the various tests which it has spawned 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.” Id.