Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Backstrom, 767 N.W.2d 453.

16 citing documents.

Minnesota Alliance for Retired Americans Educational Fund v. Steve Simon Minn. 2026
4, 2008, for the Purpose of Electing a U.S. Senator from the State of Minn.
Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., A p p e l l a n t s Minn. 2023
4, 2008, for the Purpose of Electing a U.S. Senator fr om the State of Minn.) , & n.19 (Minn. 2009).
Minn. 2021
James Donald Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2017
4, 2008) , d 453, 463 (Minn. 2009) ).
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Duane A. Kennedy, a Minnesota 864 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2015
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Duane A. Kennedy, a Minnesota 864 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2015
Both parties argue, and we agree, that (order), involves similar misconduct.
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
at such conduct was a “conflict of interest.” Further, Dr. Roe was listed as one of Beecroft’s potential witnesses until Backstrom sent an email to Dr. Thomas, “threatening to withdraw *840 support” from Dr. Thomas as the Chief Dakota County Medical Examiner “unless [Dr. Thomas] barred her subordinates [ (including Dr. Roe) ] from testifying as defense experts in criminal cases.”
KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County 806 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 2011
J, 2008, for the Purpose of Electing a U.S. Senator from the State of Minn.), , 456 (Minn.2009).
Paquin v. MacK 788 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 2010
Election), , 464 (Minn.2009) (“[T]o prevail on his equal protection claim of disparate application of a facially neutral statute, Coleman was required to prove ...
Beaulieu v. MacK 788 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
Election), , 464 (Minn.2009) (requiring Coleman to have proven intentional discrimination in order to prevail on a claim that disparate application by local election jurisdictions of the requirements for absentee voting violated equal protection).
KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County 787 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
4, 2008, for the Purpose of Electing a U.S. Senator from the State of Minn.), , 457 (Minn.2009).
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Waite 782 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Waite 782 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2010
Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 781 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2010
Ry., Co., 253 Minn. 136, 139 , (concluding that “dismissal with prejudice was binding upon the parties and stood as a bar to the bringing of another action on the same cause”); , 467 n. 18 (Minn.2009) (barring claims on certain ballots because parties had stipulated to dismiss with prejudice any claims regarding those ballots); see also 1A David F. Herr & Roger S. Haydock, Minnesota Practice— Civil Rules Ann. § 41.7 (4th ed. 2003) (explaining that a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice
Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 773 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
4, 2008), (quoting Draganosky v. Minnesota Bd.