Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kahn v. Griffin, 701 N.W.2d 815.

161 citing documents.

Minnesota Solar, LLC, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 902 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 902 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[Mjootness can be described as the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: the requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).” (quotation omitted).
Kristina Greene, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A discretionary exception to the mootness doctrine applies “ when there is a reasonable expectation that a complaining party wou ld be subjected to the same action again and the duration of the challenged action is too short to be fully litigated before it ceases or expires.” Dean, d at 5 ().
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
I. To analyze whether the Minnesota Constitution requires greater protection than the United States Constitution, because both parties rely on it to structure their arguments.
Bryant Avenue Baptist Church v. City of Minneapolis 892 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Bryant Avenue Baptist Church v. City of Minneapolis 892 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Leona Rose deLottinville 890 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Leona Rose deLottinville 890 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 2017
“[W]hen we reach a clear and strong conviction that there is a principled basis for greater protection of the individual civil and political rights of our citizens under the Minnesota Constitution, we will not hesitate to interpret the constitution to independently safeguard those rights.”
Gary Otremba, Heidi L. Moegerle v. City of East Bethel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gary Otremba, Heidi L. Moegerle v. City of East Bethel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Risk Level Determination of A. D. S.-H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Risk Level Determination of A. D. S.-H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minnesota Voters Alliance and Kirk Stensrud v. Steve Simon, only in his official capacity as the Minnesota Secretary … 885 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2016
Minnesota Voters Alliance and Kirk Stensrud v. Steve Simon, only in his official capacity as the Minnesota Secretary … 885 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2016
See, (recognizing that the right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right but “to maintain fair, honest, and orderly elections, states may impose regulations that in some measure burden the right to vote”).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jay Nygard v. Penny Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jay Nygard v. Penny Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 815, 821 (Minn. 2005) (issues capable of repetition, yet likely to evade review); d at 327 (issues giving rise to collateral consequences); Rud, d at 576 (issues that are functionally justiciable and of statewide importance).
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
le, we have held that when a federal constitutional provision has the same or substantially similar language as a corresponding provision in the Minnesota Constitution and the United States Supreme Court has interpreted that language, we will not construe the Minnesota Constitution as granting greater protection for individual rights “unless there is a principled basis to do so.”
Ethan Dean v. City of Winona 868 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
Ethan Dean v. City of Winona 868 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
The Centennial Fire Fighters Relief Association v. The City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County Auditor, Jonell Sawyer in … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Centennial Fire Fighters Relief Association v. The City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County Auditor, Jonell Sawyer in … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
( (quotation marks omitted)).
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that an issue is moot if a court is unable to grant effectual relief); (stating that an issue is moot if an event occurs that resolves the issue or renders it impossible to grant effective relief).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
to the facts of this case, we do not *688 have a “clear and strong conviction” that there is a principled basis for interpreting Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution to require greater protection than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Julie Quale, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Julie Quale, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Generally, we will dismiss a case as moot if we are unable to grant effectual relief.”).
In Re: the Petition of K. S. O. and M. A. O. to Adopt L. R. O. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In Re: the Petition of K. S. O. and M. A. O. to Adopt L. R. O. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(explaining that if a court cannot grant effective relief, the matter is generally dismissed as moot).
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Joel Eichers 853 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Joel Eichers 853 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2014
(“Generally, we do not independently apply our state constitution absent language, concerns, and traditions unique to Minnesota.”).
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
We generally do not construe the Minnesota Constitution to provide more protection for individual rights than the United States Constitution “unless there is a principled basis to do so.”
Inquiry into the Conduct of the Honorable Perez 843 N.W.2d 562 Minn. 2014
Inquiry into the Conduct of the Honorable Perez 843 N.W.2d 562 Minn. 2014
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
Mootness is a flexible discretionary doctrine, and it generally requires that a situation arise that renders the court “unable to grant effectual relief.”
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
We have recognized that we can “interpret our state constitution to afford greater protections of individual civil and political rights than does the federal constitution.”