Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis, 766 N.W.2d 683.

35 citing documents.

Christopher Thigpen v. Best Home Care LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development, ... Minn. 2025
Christopher Thigpen v. Best Home Care LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development, ... Minn. 2025
v. City of Minneapolis, (citing Wash.
Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
A23-1050 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Kolten Kranz, et al., Minn. 2023
v. City of Minneapolis, –87 (Minn. 2009) (describing the process of instant runoff voting in a municipal single-seat election).
Steve Simon, in his official capacity as Minnesota Secretary of State, Minn. 2020
v. City of Minneapolis, (quoting Anderson, 460 U.S. at 788).
Minnesota Sands, LLC, Minn. 2020
Fletcher Props., Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 931 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Fletcher Props., Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 931 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
v. City of Minneapolis , , 688 (Minn. 2009).
Olson v. One 1999 Lexus Mn License Plate No. 851ldv Vin: Jt6hf10u6x0079461 924 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2019
Olson v. One 1999 Lexus Mn License Plate No. 851ldv Vin: Jt6hf10u6x0079461 924 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2019
v. City of Minneapolis , , 696 (Minn. 2009) ; see also United States v. Salerno , 481 U.S. 739 , 745, 107 S.Ct.
Olson v. JT6HF10u6X0079461 910 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Olson v. JT6HF10u6X0079461 910 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis , , 696 (Minn. 2009).
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
v. City of Minneapolis, 688-89 (Minn. 2009) (addressing facial challenge to instant-runoff-voting election methodology on grounds that ordinance violated rights to vote, to associate for political pur poses, and to equal protection).
Steve Carlson v. Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State, Minnesota State Legislature 888 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 2016
Steve Carlson v. Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State, Minnesota State Legislature 888 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 2016
v. City of Minneapolis, (citations omitted).
Minnesota Voters Alliance and Kirk Stensrud v. Steve Simon, only in his official capacity as the Minnesota Secretary … 885 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2016
Minnesota Voters Alliance and Kirk Stensrud v. Steve Simon, only in his official capacity as the Minnesota Secretary … 885 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2016
See, (noting that a declaratory judgment action challenging the implementation of instant runoff voting was resolved initially by the district court).
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Boardwalk Bar & Grill, LLC, Relator v. East Grand Forks City Council Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Boardwalk Bar & Grill, LLC, Relator v. East Grand Forks City Council Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
To succeed on a facial challenge, Bergstrom must meet the “heavy burden *789 of proving that the legislation is unconstitutional in all applications.”
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
State v. Ness 834 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2013
State v. Ness 834 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2013
As we recently noted in McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing, “ ‘in a facial challenge to constitutionality, the challenger bears the heavy burden of proving that the legislation is unconstitutional in all applications.’ ” (); see also United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S.Ct.
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 831 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2013
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 831 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2013
A city “ordinance [is] presumed constitutional, and the burden of proving that [it is] unconstitutional is on the appellants.”
MidCountry Bank v. Krueger 782 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2010
MidCountry Bank v. Krueger 782 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2010