Cited by

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

161 citing documents.

State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Rohan 834 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Rohan 834 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(citing Anderson v. City of St.
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 831 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
we discern no persuasive reason to follow such a departure.”
League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 816 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 816 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The decisions of our supreme court have “established a definite baseline for how [to] approach the task of interpreting a provision of the Minnesota Constitution, especially when there is an identical or substantially similar federal counterpart.”
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
Carney v. State 792 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carney v. State 792 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Houck v. EASTERN CARVER COUNTY SCHOOLS 787 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Houck v. EASTERN CARVER COUNTY SCHOOLS 787 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
t has determined that the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception is “ ‘limited to the situation where two elements are combined: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.’ ” (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 , 96 S.Ct.
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
(interpreting protections under these provisions as co-extensive in the absence of “ ‘radical’ or ‘sharp’ departures” of the United States Supreme Court from its precedent); (recognizing general principle favoring uniformity with the federal constitution).
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
When language in the Minnesota Constitution is ambiguous, we seek the meaning of the language “by looking beyond the language for other in-dicia of intent.”
State v. Johnson 777 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Johnson 777 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(interpreting protections under these provisions as co-extensive in the absence of “ ‘radical’ or ‘sharp’ departures” of the United States Supreme Court from its precedent); (recognizing general principle favoring uniformity with the federal constitution).
Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 769 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 769 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel 768 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 2009
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel 768 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 2009
Although we cannot grant relief from the injunction in this case, we have recognized that mootness is a flexible doctrine, and we will not dismiss a matter as moot if the case "implicates issues that are capable of repetition, yet likely to evade review,”
Pechovnik v. Pechovnik 765 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Pechovnik v. Pechovnik 765 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Kottschade v. City of Rochester 760 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Kottschade v. City of Rochester 760 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception may apply if “ ‘(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.’ ” (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 , 96 S.Ct.
Clark v. Pawlenty 755 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2008
Clark v. Pawlenty 755 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2008
Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 755 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 755 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Our supreme court has cited the Weinstein elements with approval and stated, in addition, that the court will not deem a case moot if the case is “functionally justiciable” and presents an important public issue “of statewide significance that should be decided immediately.” -22 (Minn.2005)
State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
“Looking to the state constitution as an independent basis for individual rights is a task we approach ‘with restraint and some delicacy,’ especially when the right at stake is guaranteed by identical or substantially similar language in the federal constitution.” ().
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
Generally, we "favor[] uniformily with the federal constitution.”
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel 748 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel 748 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jordan 742 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2007
In Re the Risk Level Determination of J.V. 741 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Risk Level Determination of J.V. 741 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
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
But when we apply rational basis review under art. I, § 2 of the Minnesota Constitution, we have sometimes applied a “higher standard.” (Tomlja-novich, J., dissenting) (likening Minnesota’s approach to rational basis review to “mid-level” scrutiny).
Greene v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services 733 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Greene v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services 733 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
But the Minnesota Constitution can be interpreted “to afford greater protections of individual civil and political rights than does the federal constitution.”
State v. Anderson 733 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 2007