Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Estate of Barg, 752 N.W.2d 52.

63 citing documents.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. V. Z., Father. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
7 Father also argues that we should review this factor de novo because it relates to the application of law to stipulated facts
Brad Hammerberg, as trustee for the Leonard J. and Margaret T. Schubert Irrevocable Trust, dated June 23, 2005, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Brad Hammerberg, as trustee for the Leonard J. and Margaret T. Schubert Irrevocable Trust, dated June 23, 2005, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Estate of: Raymond Deforest Trahan, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Lance G. Cariveau, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
And “[w]hether federal law preempts state law is primarily 6 an issue of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.”
Brad Hammerberg, as Trustee for the Leonard J. and Margaret T. Schubert Irrevocable Trust dated June 23, 2005, … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. Stat. § 256B.15; (holding that federal law only allows recovery of assets 6 in which the MA recipien t had an interest at the time of their death).
TC Investment Group, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1992), whether consideration is necessary when conveying property through a warranty deed is a question of law subject to de novo review
Minn. 2021
See, (explaining the importance of congressional intent and purpose in a preemption inquiry based on federal law).
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
R e s p o n d e n t , Minn. 2021
Because Medicaid is intende d to be the payor of last 10 resort, persons must be financially eligible for Medical Assistan ce by having available assets valued below a statutory threshold amount.
Steve Simon, in his official capacity as Minnesota Secretary of State, Minn. 2020
Jill M. Larsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: James Richard Huntsman, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Appeal of: SH RG For: Northstar Adoption Assistance Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Kathryn Eich, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-64 (Minn. 2008) (explaining three ways federal law may preempt state laws) ; see also State v. Kuhlman , (explaining three ways state law may preempt local laws).
Jennissen v. City of Bloomington 904 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jennissen v. City of Bloomington 904 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-64 (Minn. 2008) (discussing three types of preemption in context of federal law preempting state law); aff'd, (explaining three ways state statute may preempt local ordinance).
Marriage of Mattson v. Mattson 903 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Marriage of Mattson v. Mattson 903 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
.”); (“A respondent who does not file a notice of review to challenge an adverse ruling of the district court waives that issue in the court of appeals.” (citing Minn. R. Civ.
Nuvola, LLC v. Morgan Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nuvola, LLC v. Morgan Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2016
City of Apple Valley v. William C. Thompson (deceased), Below, Gene Rechtzigel, individually and as trustee of Evelyn … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
City of Apple Valley v. William C. Thompson (deceased), Below, Gene Rechtzigel, individually and as trustee of Evelyn … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC, and third party v. Les Nielsen, third party 868 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC, and third party v. Les Nielsen, third party 868 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Consolidated Hospital Surcharge Appeals of Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare, St. Luke's Hospital, North … 867 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Consolidated Hospital Surcharge Appeals of Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare, St. Luke's Hospital, North … 867 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
& Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 152-54, 102 S. Ct. 3014, 3022 (1982)); see also Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280, 287, 115 S. Ct. 1483, 1487 (1995); -64 (Minn. 2008).
Terry Boyd v. BNSF Railway Company 858 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terry Boyd v. BNSF Railway Company 858 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Congressional intent to impliedly preempt state law by occupying a legislative field can be inferred “where the scheme of federal regulation is sufficiently comprehensive to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for supplementary state regulation.”
Restore House, Inc. v. Helga Township Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Restore House, Inc. v. Helga Township Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ass’n, (quotation omitted); n.6 (Minn. 2008) (addressing a pure legal question); Oanes 6 v. Allstate Ins.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Brian Lee 852 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 2014
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Brian Lee 852 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 2014
Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc. 846 N.W.2d 424 Minn. 2014
Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc. 846 N.W.2d 424 Minn. 2014
Engfer v. General Dynamics Advanced Information System, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Engfer v. General Dynamics Advanced Information System, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
ANALYSIS “Whether federal law preempts state law is primarily an issue of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.”
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Lee 832 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Lee 832 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“Whether federal law preempts state law is primarily an issue of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.”
Thole v. Commissioner of Public Safety 831 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Thole v. Commissioner of Public Safety 831 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Graves v. Wayman 816 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Graves v. Wayman 816 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
4, 106; (stating that respondent’s failure to file a notice of review under the predecessor to the current rules governing a notice of related appeal waives review of that issue in the court of appeals).
In re the Estate of Perrin 796 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Estate of Perrin 796 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Young v. Jesson 796 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Young v. Jesson 796 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
The federal Medicaid program “is jointly funded with the states as a ‘cooperative endeavor in which the [fjederal [gjovernment provides financial assistance to participating [sjtates to aid them in furnishing health care to needy persons.’ ” (quoting Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 308 , 100 S.Ct.
Marriage of Angell v. Angell 791 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2010