Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wegan v. Village of Lexington, 309 N.W.2d 273.

97 citing documents.

Lineth Arrocha, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
In Russell, we cited a –81 (Minn. 1981), to support the conclusion that the Minnesota equal pr otection guarantee requires more searching judicial scrutiny of the evidence on which the Legislature relied to support a law.
State v. Holloway 916 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2018
State v. Holloway 916 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2018
Russell , d at 888 (quoting Wegan v. Village of Lexington , , 280 (Minn. 1981) ).
Buskey v. Am. Legion Post 910 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2018
Buskey v. Am. Legion Post 910 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2018
of Lexington , , 280 (Minn. 1981) (enumerating the "justifications for ...
Kimberly L. Meyer, William Buskey v. American Legion Post 270, d/b/a Buffalo American Legion or Buffalo American Legion … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kimberly L. Meyer, William Buskey v. American Legion Post 270, d/b/a Buffalo American Legion or Buffalo American Legion … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, e.g., In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Durand, (involving different treatment of protected and non-protected surviving spouses under elective share statute); Garcia, (involving different jail credit treatment for juveniles designated as extended jurisdiction juveniles and juveniles certified as adults); (involving different statutes of limitations in dram shop actions based on type of alcohol involved); Weir v. ACCRA Care, Inc., (involving different treatment of personal care ass
In Re GUARDIANSHIP and CONSERVATORSHIP OF Helen Louise DURAND, Ward/Protected Person 859 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2015
In Re GUARDIANSHIP and CONSERVATORSHIP OF Helen Louise DURAND, Ward/Protected Person 859 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2015
State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
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
Gluba Ex Rel. Gluba v. Bitzan & Ohren Masonry 735 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2007
Gluba Ex Rel. Gluba v. Bitzan & Ohren Masonry 735 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2007
Granville v. Minneapolis School District 716 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Granville v. Minneapolis School District 716 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
( (quoting Guilliams v. Comm’r of Revenue, )).
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
It is well-established that “the legislature ‘may implement (its) program step by step * * * adopting regulations that only partially ameliorate a perceived evil and referring complete elimination of the evil to future regulations.’ ” (quoting Minn. v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 466 , 101 S.Ct.
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
The power of this court to declare a statute unconstitutional “is to be exercised only when absolutely necessary, and then with extreme caution.” (quoting Schwartz v. Talmo, 295 Minn. 356, 363 , , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 803 , 94 S.Ct.
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 668 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 668 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Gresser 657 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Gresser 657 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Wollan v. Jahnz 656 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Wollan v. Jahnz 656 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See, e.g., Trail v. Christian, 298 Minn. 101
Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. 654 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. 654 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
We recognize that the supreme court has said that one purpose of the notice requirement is to “provide dramshops with an early opportunity to investigate claims * *
Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
Oslund v. Johnson 567 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Oslund v. Johnson 567 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Respondent Toonen, however, (holding that the notice provision was unconstitutional because it did not apply to vendors of 3.2 beer and there was no rational basis for treating sellers of stronger liquor differently from sellers of 3.2 beer).
Wallin v. Letourneau 524 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Wallin v. Letourneau 524 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(purpose of dram shop notice provision is to provide early opportunity to investigate, facilitate negotiation and settlement without litigation, correct defects before others suffer injury, and protect against stale and fraudulent claims); Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76, 79
Mitchell v. Steffen 504 N.W.2d 198 Minn. 1993
In Re the Welfare of E.Y.W. 496 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re the Welfare of E.Y.W. 496 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rogers v. Ponti-Peterson Post 1720 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States of America, Inc. 495 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rogers v. Ponti-Peterson Post 1720 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States of America, Inc. 495 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
City of Richfield v. Local No. 1215, Int’l *901 Ass ’n of Fire Fighters
State v. Morrow 492 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Morrow 492 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Mitchell v. Steffen 487 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Mitchell v. Steffen 487 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See McGuire, d at 614 ( (Amdahl, J., concurring)).
State v. Russell 477 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1991
State v. Russell 477 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1991
State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(religious liberties); (double jeopardy clause); , 281 n. 14 (Minn.1981) (equal protection); O’ (rights of criminally accused).