Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Obara v. Minnesota Department of Health, 758 N.W.2d 873.

24 citing documents.

Shawnnise Watkins, Relator v. Minnesota Department of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Explained Shawnnise Watkins, Relator v. Minnesota Department of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of Magdala Sims (A/K/A Desrosiers), RN License No. 2507958. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
14, 1995); Obara v. Minn. Dep’t of Health, d 873, 878 (Minn. App. 2008) (concluding that relator had a “protected property interest in pursuing his nursing career” after he was disqualified from employment with facilities licensed by the Minnesota Department of Health).
State of Minnesota, by Spring Valley Friends, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Obara v. Minn. Dep’t of Health, (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Short Call Substitute Teaching License Application of Jeronimo Yanez. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See, e.g., Obara v. Minn. Dep’t of Health, d 873, 878-89 (Minn. 2008) (holding that individuals have a protected property interest in pursuing a career in a job in the public sector and that constitutional interest “demands that 15 While we conclude that the “immoral character or conduct” provision of the licensing statute is impermissibly vague, we also hold
L.J.P., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We have held that background studies on Minnesota workers are indeed necessary to protect the h ealth and safety of vulnerable individuals and therefore this interest is of “paramount importance.” Obara v. Minn. Dep ’t. of Health, (citing Minn. Stat. § 245C.22, subd.
A. L. G., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Anderson, d at 167 (“[A] nurse has a protected property interest in holding direct-care positions in state-licensed facilities.”); Obara v. Minn. Dep’t of Health, (holding that relator had a protected property interest in pursuing nursing career in MDH-licensed facility); see also Fosselman v. Comm’r of Human Servs.
Robert Atkinson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the context of a state program conferring benefits on a person , “due process demands that a statute not be an unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious interference and requires at minimum that the statute bear a rational relation to the public purpose sought to be served.” Obara v. Minnesota Dep’t of Health, (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of Unity Health Care, Class F Home License No. 352187 and Unity Home Care, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of Unity Health Care, Class F Home License No. 352187 and Unity Home Care, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Disqualification from a state- licensed program may violate an entity’s right to substantive due process if the statute applied is unreasonable, results in arbitrary or capricious interference, or lacks, at a minimum, “a rational relation to the public purpose sought to be served.” Obara v. Minn. Dep’t of Health, (quotation omitted).
Jason Daniel Gustafson, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services 884 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Daniel Gustafson, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services 884 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the context of disqualification from a state-licensed program, “due process demands that a statute not be an unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious interference and requires at minimum that the statute bear a rational relation to the public purpose sought to be served.” Obara v. Minnesota Dep’t of Health, (quotation omitted).
George Marita Obara, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2015
George Marita Obara, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Obara v. Minn. Dep’t. of Health
John Fasan Atambo, Relator v. Commissioner of Health Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John Fasan Atambo, Relator v. Commissioner of Health Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Obara v. Minn. Dep’t of Health
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Obara v. Minn. Dep’t of Health, -78 (Minn.App.2008) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332, 335 , 96 S.Ct.
Anderson v. Commissioner of Health 811 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Anderson v. Commissioner of Health 811 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Obara v. Minn. Dep’t of Health
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
“[D]ue process demands that a statute not be ‘an unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious interference’ and requires at minimum that the statute ‘bear a rational relation to the public purpose sought to be served.’ ” Obara v. Minn. Dep’t of Health, ().
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
Obara v. Minn. Dep’t of Health