Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes, 823 N.W.2d 627.

156 citing documents.

In re the Estate of James J. Fiorentino, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976).
Mary Kate Nguyen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Megan Marie Johnson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Matter of: Kaitlyn Mae Steffenhagen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We conduct a two-step analysis to determine whether the government has violated an individual’s procedural due process rights.”
Mark Arnold Wadekamper, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes
Mower County Health and Human Services, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Due process requires “an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful way.” (emphasis added).
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Michelle Lowney MacDonald, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration Minn. 2021
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , , 632 (Minn. 2012).
Eric Reetz, Minn. 2021
We review a quasi-judicial decision made by a municipality under a “limited and nonintrusive standard of review.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In the Matter of the Cigarette/Tobacco and Gas Station licenses held by Midway University & Hamline, LLC d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , (Minn .
Thomas Purmort, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
See Melchert- Dinkel, d at 23 (finding the State has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens from suicide); Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , (“There is no question that th e [government] has a compelli ng interest in ensuring the health and safety of its citizens.”); Bendorf v. Comm’r of Pub.
Katie Aase, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , .
In re: Request for Records by Amina Mohamed. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Gary Allen Jensen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
were constitutionally sufficient.” (quotation omitted).
Essar Global Fund Limited, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332, 96 S. Ct. 893, 901 (1976); (noting that Minnesota courts conduct a two -step analysis identifying whether the government deprived the individual of a protected interest and then determining whether the procedures used were sufficient).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes
Raymond L. Semler, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Whether the government has violated a person’s procedural due process rights is a question of law that we review de novo.” Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes
Zayna Shire, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In evaluating a procedural due-process claim, courts must first identify “whether the government has deprived the individual of a pr otected life, liberty, or property interest.” Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes
In Re: The Matter of the Petition for Project No. 77, Clay County Ditch No. 51-Lateral No. 3, … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
of Regents v. Roth , 408 U.S. 564, 569, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 2705 (1972); (stating that procedural due-process protections do not apply when government action might deprive a protected interest at an indeterminable future period based on unfulfilled conditions).
In re the Matter of St. Paul Area Electrical JATC Registered Apprenticeship Program and Damon Doss. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , d 627, 632 (Minn. 2012).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Steven Michael Krause, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 627, 632 (Minn. 2012).
In re the Matter of: Victoria Carlson and Stephen Carlson, Appellants, vs. Pam Wheelock, in her official capacity … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether the government has violated a person’s procedural due process rights is a question of law that we review de 11 novo.”
ITW Food Equipment Group LLC, a/k/a Hobart, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes
Richard Duncan, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts review quasi-judicial decisions, such as this one, under a “limited and nonintrusive standard of review.” Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , d 627, 635 (Minn. 2012) (quotati on omitted).
In re Applications of Enbridge Energy, Ltd. 930 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Applications of Enbridge Energy, Ltd. 930 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , , 638 n.3 (Minn. 2012) (explaining that "mandatory-directory dichotomy is irrelevant here because this case does not involve a question about the consequences of an entity's failure to comply with the duties imposed upon it").
A18-1291 A18-1292 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , , 638 n.3 (Minn. 2012) (explaining that “ mandatory-directory dichotomy is irrelevant here because this case does not involve a question about the consequences of an entity’s failure to comply with the duties imposed upon it ”).
A18-1851 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes
Alissa Boehm, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , (“[W]hile animal owners have considerable sentimental attachment to their pets, Minnesota law treats an animal like any other item of tangible pe rsonal property.”).
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
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , , 632 (Minn. 2012) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In re Decision to Deny the Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing 924 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Decision to Deny the Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing 924 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
" Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , , 632 (Minn. 2012) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 , 333, 96 S.Ct.
In the Matter of the Risk Level Determination of D. R. C. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Minn. Living Assistance, Inc. 919 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Minn. Living Assistance, Inc. 919 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The supreme court rejected Baywood's argument in Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes
Rochester City Lines Co. v. City of Rochester 913 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2018
Rochester City Lines Co. v. City of Rochester 913 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2018
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , , 635 (Minn. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Diane Phyllis Krekelberg, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To determine whether a government action violates procedural 7 due process, this court must “identify whether the government has deprived the individual of a protected life, liberty, or property interest.” d 627, 632 (Minn. 2012).
Gregory Mailand, et al., Relators, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , (alteration in original) (citations and quotations omitted); Staeheli v. City of St.
Julia Wang, d/b/a Orchid Massage Spa, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes
State v. Roy 910 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Roy 910 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , , 632 (Minn. 2012).
Olson v. JT6HF10u6X0079461 910 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Olson v. JT6HF10u6X0079461 910 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , , 632 (Minn. 2012) ; Williams v. Comm'r of Pub.
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , , 632 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
A. “Whether the government has violated a person’s procedural due process rights is a question of law that we review de novo.” Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes