Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Contos v. Herbst, 278 N.W.2d 732.

82 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Oliver Wilfred Cass, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“At a minimum the due process clause requires that depriv ation of property be preceded by notice and an opportunity fo r a hearing appropriate to the case.”
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
See Boutin, d at 717–18 (citing Contos v. Herbst , ).5 A law is permissible when it is within the power of the governmental decision maker to enact and serves a public purpose.
KCP Hastings, LLC v. Cnty. of Dakota 931 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2019
KCP Hastings, LLC v. Cnty. of Dakota 931 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2019
See Cont'l Retail, LLC , d at 401 ; see also Contos v. Herbst , , 737 (Minn. 1979) ("[T]he entire 'bundle of rights' ...
Dean v. City of Winona 843 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Dean v. City of Winona 843 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The rational-basis standard requires that: (1) “the act serve to promote a public purpose,” (2) the act “not be an unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious interference” with a private interest, and (3) “the means chosen bear a rational relation to the public purpose sought to be served.”
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Continental Retail, LLC v. County of Hennepin 801 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 2011
Continental Retail, LLC v. County of Hennepin 801 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 2011
STUDOR, INC. v. State 781 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
STUDOR, INC. v. State 781 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“[D]ue process demands that a statute not be ‘an unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious interference’ and requires at minimum that the statute ‘bear a rational relation to the public purpose sought to be served.’ ” Obara v. Minn. Dep’t of Health, ().
Obara v. Minnesota Department of Health 758 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Obara v. Minnesota Department of Health 758 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
But due process demands that a statute not be “an unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious interference” and requires at minimum that the statute “bear a rational relation to the public purpose sought to be served.”
State v. Hartmann 700 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2005
State v. Hartmann 700 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2005
715 , 66 L.Ed.2d 659 (1981)
County of Stearns v. Barnell 693 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
County of Stearns v. Barnell 693 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Arcadia Dev., review denied (Minn. Oct.
ILHC OF EAGAN, LLC v. County of Dakota 693 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2005
ILHC OF EAGAN, LLC v. County of Dakota 693 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2005
Peoples State Bank Truman v. Triplett 633 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Peoples State Bank Truman v. Triplett 633 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(statute of limitations operates to withhold the remedy but does not affect the right), with Bies, 258 Minn, at 148, d at 235 (“[WJhere a statute gives a new right of action, not existing at common law, and prescribes a time within which it may be enforced, the time so prescribed is a conditi
Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNOR 602 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNOR 602 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“[T]he due process clause requires that deprivation of property be preceded by notice and an opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the case.” (citation omitted).
Boutin v. LaFleur 591 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1999
Boutin v. LaFleur 591 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1999
The rational basis standard requires: (1) that “the act serve to promote a public purpose,” (2) that the act “not be an unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious interference” with a private interest, and (3) that “the means chosen bear a rational relation to the public purpose sought to be served.”
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
(stating “at a minimum the due process clause requires that a deprivation of property be preceded by notice and an opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the case”); L.K.
Westling v. County of Mille Lacs 581 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1998
Westling v. County of Mille Lacs 581 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1998
Ruberto v. County of Washington 572 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1997
Ruberto v. County of Washington 572 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1997
“At a minimum the due process clause requires that deprivation of property be preceded by notice and an opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the case.” (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust, Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct.
State v. Behl 564 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1997
State v. Behl 564 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1997
State v. Christie 506 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1993
State v. Christie 506 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1993
2633 , 110 L.Ed.2d 653 (1990); appeal dismissed sub.
Grussing v. Kvam Implement Co. 478 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Grussing v. Kvam Implement Co. 478 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Investment Co. Institute v. Hatch 477 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Investment Co. Institute v. Hatch 477 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
( appeal dismissed sub nom, Prest v. Herbst, 444 U.S. 804 , 100 S.Ct.
Paulson v. Lapa, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Paulson v. Lapa, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Merrill 450 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1990
State v. Merrill 450 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1990
appeal dismissed sub nom., Prest v. Herbst, 444 U.S. 804 , 100 S.Ct.
Mammenga v. State Department of Human Services 442 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1989
Mammenga v. State Department of Human Services 442 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1989
See, (“Where an economic regulation is involved, due process requires that legislative enactments not be arbitrary or capricious; or, stated differently, that they be a reasonable means to a permissive objective.”), appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 804 , 100 S.Ct.
State ex rel. Bouza v. Gregg 435 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State ex rel. Bouza v. Gregg 435 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
reh’g denied (March 13, 1979) (failure to provide a meaningful hearing prior to forfeiture of mineral rights constituted a due process violation).
Sisson v. Triplett 428 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1988
Sisson v. Triplett 428 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1988
(citing Federal Distillers, Inc. v. State, 304 Minn. 28 , , appeal dismissed sub nom.