Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Richmond, 730 N.W.2d 62.

29 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(quotation marks omitted), rev. denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
State of Minnesota, by Jan Malcolm, Commissioner of Health, in her Official capacity, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The equal protection clauses of both the United States and Minnesota constitutions mandate that all similarly situated i ndividuals shall be treated alike.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
A19-1113 A19-1115 A19-1116 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Richmond , (cautioning that it is not for appellate courts to “fix” a statutory scheme by adding or removing language), review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007); (recognizing that definition of crimes lies within exclusive province of legislature).5
A19-0218 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
16 The state counters that Dunston’s argument fails under this court’s review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
3 (cautioning that it is not for the appellate courts to “fix” a statutory scheme by adding or removing language (citing State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461, 462 , (recognizing that the definition of crimes lies within the exclusive province of the legislature))), review den
James Donald Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The equal-protection clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions “mandate that all similarly situated individuals shall be treated alike.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007); see U.S. Const. amend.
In the MATTER OF the Application for Licensure of Nadeen GRIEPENTROG 888 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the MATTER OF the Application for Licensure of Nadeen GRIEPENTROG 888 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
In the Matter of 2015 Class C License Application of Dr. Mohamed El Deeb. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of 2015 Class C License Application of Dr. Mohamed El Deeb. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A] facial challenge to a statute on equal-protection grounds asserts that at least two classes are created by the statute, that the classes are treated differently under the statute, and that the difference in treatment cannot be justified.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
In the Matter of the Revocation of the Family Child Care License of Jennifer Ball. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Revocation of the Family Child Care License of Jennifer Ball. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
Janie "Jane" Astramecki v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Janie "Jane" Astramecki v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The equal protection clauses of both the United States and Minnesota [C]onstitutions mandate that all similarly situated individuals shall be treated alike.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
Dean v. City of Winona 843 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Dean v. City of Winona 843 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A. Equal Protection “A party may raise an equal protection challenge to a statute based on the statute’s express terms, that is, a ‘facial’ challenge, or based on the statute’s application, that is, an ‘as-applied’ challenge.” review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
1; review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
State v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
State v. Soukup 746 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Soukup 746 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(noting that where an order dismisses a state’s case, the critical impact prong is met if defendant does not challenge critical impact)
State v. Kelley 734 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Kelley 734 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
§ 645.16-17 (2004); (interpreting statute to determine legislative intent).