Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cox, 798 N.W.2d 517.

107 citing documents.

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
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
Joel Marvin Munt v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2016
Joel Marvin Munt v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2016
v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (explaining that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike”); (noting that “equal protection does not require that the State treat persons who are differently situated as though they were the same”) ()).
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Intent generally is proved circumstantially, by inference from words and acts of the actor both before and after the incident.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Intent generally is proved circumstantially, by inference from words and acts of the actor both before and after the incident.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates a constitutional provision.”
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Matthew Willems Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Janie "Jane" Astramecki v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Janie "Jane" Astramecki v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minn. Ct. App. 2015
in determining whether two groups are similarly situated is whether they are alike in all relevant respects.”
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Matthew Willems Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates a constitutional provision.”
In Re GUARDIANSHIP and CONSERVATORSHIP OF Helen Louise DURAND, Ward/Protected Person 859 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2015
In Re GUARDIANSHIP and CONSERVATORSHIP OF Helen Louise DURAND, Ward/Protected Person 859 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates a constitutional provision.”
State of Minnesota v. Yee Leng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yee Leng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Jay Boyd, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Lamar Everett, and David Lamar Everett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Jay Boyd, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Lamar Everett, and David Lamar Everett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Todd Eugene Trahan Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Todd Eugene Trahan Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates a constitutional provision.”
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Joseph Poitra Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Joseph Poitra Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Randy Lee Oulman v. Wade Setter, Superintendent, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronald James Chasingbear Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Randy Lee Oulman v. Wade Setter, Superintendent, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronald James Chasingbear Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-22 (Minn.2011) (stating that “we have routinely rejected equal-protection claims when a party cannot establish that he or she is similarly situated to those whom they contend are being treated differently”); see also Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 , 112 S.Ct.
In re Guardianship of Durand 845 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Guardianship of Durand 845 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
And “we routinely reject[ ] equal-protection claims when a party cannot establish that he or she is similarly situated to those whom they contend are being treated differently.” Schatz v. In *825 terfaith Care Ctr., ( (omission in original)); see, -93 (Minn.1998) (rejecting equal protection claim because 15-year-old defendant, who committed first-degree murder and was tried as an adult, was not similarly situated to 15-year-olds who commit first-degree murder but remained
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
An equal-protection challenge requires an initial showing that “similarly situated persons have been treated differently.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“To prevail, a party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates a constitutional provision.”
Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis 823 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2012
Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis 823 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2012
Fosle v. Ritchie 824 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2012
Fosle v. Ritchie 824 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2012
In re Murray 821 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2012
State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012