Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fine v. Bernstein, 726 N.W.2d 137.

17 citing documents.

Criticized State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
15 “Statements criticizing official conduct do not lose constitutional protection merely because they are criticisms.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. Nathan Miller, Relators, Attorney General Keith Ellison, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Republican Party of Minnesota v. Nathan Miller, Relators, Attorney General Keith Ellison, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In a challenge asserting that an OAH decision was not supported by substantial evidence, the relator has “the burden of establishing that the findings of the agency are unsupported by the evidence in the record, considered in its entirety.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Rebecca Lynn Fideldy, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“An agency ’s conclusions are not arbitrary and capricious if a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made is articulated.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“An agency’s conclusions are not arbitrary and capricious if a rational connection between the fac ts found and the choice made is articulated.” Fine v. Bernstein , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Re: Special Education Complaint 22-027C on behalf of V.S., L.S., and G.S. from Waconia ISD 0110-01. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Jomari E. Alexander, Sr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In determining whether a statement is one of fact or opinion, courts consider “(1) a statement’s precision and specificity; (2) a statement’s verifiability; (3) the social and literary context in which the statement was made; and (4) a statement’s public context.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
In the Matter of Don and Beverly Goerisch Replacement Housing Payment Claim. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION “On appeal, we presume the [Office of Administrative Hearings’s (OAH’s)] decision is correct.” Lewison v. Hutchinson , 7 (Minn. App. 2019) ( (holding that agency decision-maker presumption of correctness extends to OAH administrative judges), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Brian Madison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When determining whether a statement expresses a fact or an opinion, we consider “(1) a statement ’s precision and specificity; (2) a statement’s verifiability; (3) the social and literary context in which the statement was made; and (4) a statement’s public context.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
Katie Aase, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In determining whether a statement is one of fact or opin ion, courts consider: “(1) a statement’s precision and specificity; (2) a statement’s verifiability; (3) the social and literary context in which the statement was made; and (4) a statement’s public context.” Fine v. Bernstein , , review denied (Minn. Apr.
Jeffrey C. Brown PLLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Indeed, the First Amendment protects opinion statements “because (supposedly) there is no such thing as a false opinion.” Fine v. Bernstein , review denied (Minn. Apr.
Lewison v. Hutchinson 929 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lewison v. Hutchinson 929 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Fine v. Bernstein , , 142 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Apr.
City of Grant, by and through its City Clerk, Kim Points, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An agency’s conclusions are not arbitrary and capricious if a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made is articulated.” , review denied (Minn. Apr.
In the Matter of the Athlete Agent Application of Donald Walthal.l Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Athlete Agent Application of Donald Walthal.l Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 137, 142 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Apr.