Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Miller Brewing Co. v. State, 284 N.W.2d 353.

125 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Christopher Cody Johnson a/k/a Natasha Johnson (“Tasha”). Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 353, 356 (Minn. 1979) (“A statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless the party challenging it demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates some constitutional provision.”).
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
Miller Brewing Co. v. State , (stating that the “purpose of the statute must be on e that the state can legitimately attempt to achieve”); Contos d at 741 (stati ng that the law must “serve to promote a public purpose”).6 The means chosen to achieve the purpose are reasonable if the legislative body could rationall
Minnesota Sands, LLC, Minn. 2020
11 extreme caution.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, ().
Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis 823 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2012
Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis 823 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2012
Relators do not claim that any Minnesota tax statute violates the uniformity clause by discriminating between "the same class of subjects,” Minn. Const, art. X, § 1, and, therefore, to determine the constitutionality of such a statutory classification.
Singer v. Commissioner 817 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2012
Singer v. Commissioner 817 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2012
Rather, whether a : The test to determine the constitutionality of statutory classifications includes three primary elements: (1) The distinctions which separate those included within the classification from those excluded must not be manifestly arbitrary or fanciful but must be genuine and substantial, thereby providin
State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 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
Id.; (“A statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless the party challenging it demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates some constitutional provision”).
In Re the Welfare of M.L.M. 781 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Welfare of M.L.M. 781 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Johnson 777 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Johnson 777 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must “demonstrate [ ] beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates some constitutional provision.”
Mastakoski v. 2003 Dodge Durango, VIN 1D8HS78Z13F530764 738 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Mastakoski v. 2003 Dodge Durango, VIN 1D8HS78Z13F530764 738 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that a person challenging the constitutionality of a statute must “demonstrate!]
State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Further, “[t]he party challenging a statute has the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of some provision of the Minnesota Constitution.” (holding that person challenging constitutionality of a statute must “demonstrate[ ] beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates some constitutional provision”).
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 713 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2006
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 713 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2006
State v. Bren 704 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Bren 704 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
A Minnesota court will declare a statute unconstitutional only when “absolutely necessary and with extreme caution.”
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
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 685 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 685 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Minnesota Automatic Merchandising Council v. Salomone 682 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 2004
Minnesota Automatic Merchandising Council v. Salomone 682 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 2004
Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass’n, ().
Minnesota Automatic Merchandising Council v. Smith 667 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Minnesota Automatic Merchandising Council v. Smith 667 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(citations omitted); -51 (Minn.2002).
State v. Manypenny 662 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Manypenny 662 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“The party challenging a statute has the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of some provision of the Minnesota Constitution.” Haggerty, d at 364 (citation omitted); (recognizing that a person challenging the constitutionality of a statute must overcome every presumption in favor of constitutionality).
Lutheran Brotherhood Research Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue 656 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 2003
Lutheran Brotherhood Research Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue 656 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 2003
Miller v. One 2001 Pontiac Aztek, GHS-186 VIN: 3G7DA03E41S500032 655 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Miller v. One 2001 Pontiac Aztek, GHS-186 VIN: 3G7DA03E41S500032 655 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Everything Etched, Inc. v. Shakopee Towing, Inc. 634 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Everything Etched, Inc. v. Shakopee Towing, Inc. 634 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
City of New Brighton v. 2000 Ford Excursion VIN 1FMNU43S2YEA74156 622 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
City of New Brighton v. 2000 Ford Excursion VIN 1FMNU43S2YEA74156 622 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 615 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 2000
Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 615 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 2000
Hawes v. 1997 Jeep Wrangler, Vin No. 1J4FY29POVP493248, License No. 874 PDG 602 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 1999