Cited by

19, 2016); Citizens for a (“This court is bound by decision[s] of the Minnesota Supreme Court .

See Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational Church , (explaining that this court is bound by decisions of the United States Supreme Court but not the decision of any other federal court).

may be cited as persuasive authority.”); see also Citizens for a (explaining that this court is bound by decisions of the United States Supreme Court but not the decision of any other federal court); (observing that this court is not bound to follow precedent from other state courts), rev. denied (Minn.

Sixta argues that the district court should have followed the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation of “a mental defective.” We are not bound by federal court decisions— beyond those issued by the United States Supreme Court—even when those opinions are “interpreting federal statutes.” Citizens for a

See Citizens for a -19 (Minn. App. 2003) (concluding that advocacy group’s allegations of detrimental effects that would be caused to neighborhood by conditional-use permit demonstrated particularized property and personal interests); Stansell, d at 818 (concluding that city residents lacked standing to oppose zoning ord

A. When a party lacks standing, “a court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.” Citizens for a (citing Annandale Advoc.

(“Although not binding, these other federal court opinions are persuasive .

See Citizens for a (instructing that federal caselaw, while not binding, may be persuasive and should be accorded “due deference”).

See Citizens for a (noting that this court is bound by decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court).

10, 2021); see also Citizens for a (explaining that this court is bound by decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court).

See Citizens for a (recognizing that we are “bound by decision[s] of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court,” but not “by any other federal courts’ opinion[s]” though such “opinions are persuasive and should be afforded due deference”); (Mi

See Citizens for a (recognizing that we are “bound by decision[s] of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court,” but not “by any other federal courts’ opinion[s]” though such opinions “are persuasive and should be afforded due deference”).

Jendro v. Honeywell, Inc., n.1 (Minn. App. 1986); see also Craig, d at 793 -98 (discussing and following federal circuit court opinions interpreting Second Amendment).

See, e.g. , d 490, 499 (Minn. 2024) (analyzing standing based on language of Minnesota Statutes section 204B.44(a) (2022)); Gretsch v. Vantium Cap., Inc., (analyzing standing based on language of Minnesota Statutes section 58.18, subdivision 1 (2012)); Citizens for a d 13, 18 (Minn. App. 2003) (analyzing standing based on language of Minnesota Statutes 52 section 462.361, subdivision 1 (2002)).

See Citizens for a (recognizing we are “bound by decision[s] of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court,” but not “by any other federal courts’ opinion[s]” though such opinions “are persuasive and should be afforded due deference”); (Minn. 1

See Citizens for a (explaining that this court is bound by decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court but not the decision of any other federal court).

316, 324-25 (D. Minn. 1997) (interpreting the MGDPA); see also Citizens for a (recognizing that the decisions of lower federal courts may “be persuasive and should be afforded due deference”).

at 630-31; see also Citizens for a (concluding that statutory grant of standing to an “aggrieved” person extends to a 6 person adversely affected by the challenged action).

See Citizens for a (recognizing that we are “bound by decision[s] of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court,” but not “by any other federal courts’ opinion[s]” though such opinions “are persuasive and should be afforded due deference”).

First, rule 9.02 applies to “averments of fraud.” Elder has alleged fraudulent activity by the bank, including that the bank has “wrongly determined to falsely exploit the favorable aspects of Ohio’s See Citizens for a (explaining that we are bound by U.S. Supreme Court and Minnesota Supreme Court but not by decisions of other federal courts).

Where a party lacks standing, “a court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.” Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational Church

See Citizens for a (stating that this court is bound by the Supreme Court but not other federal courts).

See Citizens for a (“This court is bound by decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court .

Though they do not bind us, we consider federal court opinions for their persuasive value and afford those opinions “due deference.” Citizens for a

Standing may be acquired “when a party is the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.” Citizens for a

See Citizens for a (stating that this court is 11 bound only by United States Supreme Court precedent and not by “any other federal courts’ opinion, even when interpreting federal statutes”).

See Citizens for a (stating that the court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent).

the legal rights or privileges of the petitioner”), and Minn. Stat. § 462.361 (2020) (allowing “[a]ny person aggrieved” by a municipal ordinance to seek review (emphasis added)); see also Citizens for a (requiring aggrieved person); (requiring injured person); Minn. Pub.

See Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational Church , (recognizing that this court is only bound by decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Minnesota Supreme Court) .

See Citizens for a (“ This court is bound by decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.”); see also Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co. , (considering foreign caselaw for persuasive value but not as binding authority).

See Citizens for a (“Although not binding, .

Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational Church

Citizens for a (“We are not, however, bound by any other federal courts’ opini on .