Cited by

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

125 citing documents.

Mohs v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 349 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
ssification must be genuine or relevant to the purposes of the law; that is, there must be an evident connection between the distinctive needs peculiar to the class and the prescribed remedy; (3) the purpose of the statute must be one that the state can legitimately attempt to achieve.”
McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC. 346 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC. 346 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
Erie Mining Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 343 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1984
Erie Mining Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 343 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1984
tion into those of three units or less and those properties with four or more units constitutional); -43 (Minn.1982) (retroactive assessment of taxes on iron ore for six-year period constitutional); -43 (Minn.1980) (farm loss modification law held constitutional); (50% credit allowed against excise tax imposed on barrels of malt beverages produced by brewers with production facilities in the state constitutional).
Rio Vista Non-Profit Housing Corp. v. County of Ramsey 335 N.W.2d 242 Minn. 1983
Rio Vista Non-Profit Housing Corp. v. County of Ramsey 335 N.W.2d 242 Minn. 1983
Hegenes v. State 328 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1983
Hegenes v. State 328 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1983
United States Steel Corp. v. State 324 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1982
United States Steel Corp. v. State 324 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1982
24 , 62 L.Ed.2d 17 (1979)
Thompson v. Estate of Petroff 319 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1982
Thompson v. Estate of Petroff 319 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1982
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. State Ex Rel. Allen 315 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1982
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. State Ex Rel. Allen 315 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1982
While every presumption favors the constitutionality of a statute, see, this court has also stated that “we may not stretch the Constitution to suit the convenience of the hour.” Reed v. Bjornson, 191 Minn. 254, 257 , 253 N.W.
Nelson v. Peterson 313 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1981
Nelson v. Peterson 313 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1981
to justify legislation adapted to peculiar conditions and needs; (2) the classification must be genuine or relevant to the purpose of the law; that is, there must be an evident connection between the distinctive needs peculiar to the class and the prescribed remedy; (3) the purpose of the statute must be one that the state can legitimately attempt to achieve.”
Wegan v. Village of Lexington 309 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1981
Wegan v. Village of Lexington 309 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1981
Haskell's Inc. v. Sopsic 306 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1981
Haskell's Inc. v. Sopsic 306 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1981
Guilliams v. Commissioner of Revenue 299 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1980
Guilliams v. Commissioner of Revenue 299 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1980
5 There is, of course, a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of the statute, and the challengers “have the burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the act conflicts with the uniformity clause of the state constitution.”
MINNESOTA FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DIST. v. State 295 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1980
MINNESOTA FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DIST. v. State 295 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1980