DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Greene v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, 755 N.W.2d 713.

75 citing documents.

  • First National Bank v. Profit Pork, LLC 820 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    “The primary objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.” Greene v. Comm’r, Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs.
  • State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
  • Swenson v. Nickaboine 793 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 2011
  • Swenson v. Nickaboine 793 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 2011
    For example, a recent case refers to the MLBO as “the only Indian tribe in Minnesota with its own [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] program.” See Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., , 718 n. 2 (Minn.2008) (emphasis added).
  • Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLC 785 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 2010
  • Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLC 785 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 2010
    See Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., (noting that it is not the “proper function” of the judiciary to add “a right into the statute”); M.E. Kraft Excavating & Grading Co. v. Barac Constr.
  • Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 781 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2010
  • Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 781 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2010
    P. 103.04; see also Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., , 725 n. 9 (Minn.2008).
  • Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
  • Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 781 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 2010
  • Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 781 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 2010
    Cf. Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., (interpreting statute as denying individual tribal members “either the right to decline receiving employment services through the Tribe or the right to receive those services through the County” where the statute did “not contain any language that expressly grants” such rights).
  • STUDOR, INC. v. State 781 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • STUDOR, INC. v. State 781 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    Under the federal rational-basis test, a reviewing court determines whether the challenged classification has a “legitimate purpose” and whether it was “reasonable for the lawmakers to believe that use of the challenged classification would promote that purpose.” Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., (quoting W. & S. Life Ins.
  • Thompson v. Commissioner of Health 778 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Thompson v. Commissioner of Health 778 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    “The guarantee of equal protection of the laws requires that the state treat all similarly situated persons alike.” Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dept. of Human Servs., (), aff'd
  • Larson v. State 776 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Larson v. State 776 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    “The primary objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.” Greene v. Comm’r, Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs.
  • In Re the Welfare of the Children of R.A.J. 769 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • In Re the Welfare of the Children of R.A.J. 769 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs.
  • In re the Risk Level Determination of D.W. 766 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • In Re Dw 766 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • In Re Dw 766 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Greene v. Comm'r, Minn. Dep't of Human Servs.
  • In re the Risk Level Determination of D.W. 766 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    “The primary objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.” Greene v. Comm’r, Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs.
  • State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    See Greene v. Commissioner of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., -30 (Minn. 2008).