Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 764.

146 citing documents.

In re the Matter of: Madeline Jane McGill v. Elton James Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2021
6a(b); (“Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd.
Lindsey Middlecamp v. Brock William Fredin Minn. Ct. App. 2021
in which the supreme court rejected numerous constitutional challenges to the issuance of a 50-year HRO.
In re the Marriage of: Oliver Wilfred Cass v. YeYing Cen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
2 The United States and Minnesota Constituti ons “provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” (citing U.S. Const. amend.
State of Minnesota v. Terry Allen Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In a procedural-due-process challenge, we first determine whether the government deprived a person of a protectable liberty interest, and, if so, we “determine whether the procedures followed by the government were constitutionally sufficient.” Rew v. Bergstrom , (quotation omitted).
Michael D. Perseke v. Jodi Harpstead, et al., Paul Schnell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
U.S. Const. art. I, § 10; Minn. Const. art. I, § 11; Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28, 101 S. Ct. 960, 964 (1981)
Megan Guetzkow, as mother and natural guardian of E.I., a minor, et al v. Brian John Irgens Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Michael Dennis Dewar v. Luanna Sue Gary Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 764, 785 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Casillas Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In Re: The Matter of the Petition for Project No. 77, Clay County Ditch No. 51-Lateral No. 3, … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In Re the Custody of: N.S.V., L.J.V., E.T.V., Terri Ann Bischoff v. Linda J. Vetter Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Friends to Restore St. Mary's, LLC v. Church of Saint Mary, Melrose, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Grace Elizabeth Miller v. Brock Fredin Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“To qualify as an ex post facto law, a statute must be a criminal or penal law, it must not be merely procedural, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it.” Rew v. Bergstrom , (quotations omitted).
David Rucki, et al v. Deirdre Elise Evavold Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Matter of Welfare of A. J. B. 929 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 2019
Matter of Welfare of A. J. B. 929 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 2019
See, e.g. , Rew v. Bergstrom , , 776-80 (Minn. 2014) (upholding Minnesota's order for protection statute, Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd.
In the Matter of: Myrna Wati Ali v. Yusuf Haji-Ismail Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“District courts have broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence on a number of grounds, including relevance.” Rew v. Bergstrom
In re the Marriage of: Beth Ann Bersaw v. Richard George Bersaw Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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
See, e.g. , Gams , d at 619 (naming Mathews as the balancing test used to assess a procedural due process claim); Rew v. Bergstrom , , 785-86 (Minn. 2014) (applying Mathews in a procedural due process challenge); Sawh , , 632 (Minn. 2012) (noting that Mathews sets forth the test for the "constitutional adequacy of specific procedures"); State v. Wiltgen , , 568 (Minn. 2007) ("Since 1982 ...
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
Rew v. Bergstrom , , 785 (Minn. 2014).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: H. R. W. and M. D. L., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Fielding v. Comm'r of Revenue 916 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2018
Fielding v. Comm'r of Revenue 916 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2018
Citing Rew v. Bergstrom , , 780 (Minn. 2014), the Commissioner asserts that in an as-applied challenge based on the Due Process Clause, we must examine all facts and circumstances underlying the Commissioner's action, including the "practical operation of the tax residency statute" in this case and the multiple contacts between Minnesota and t
In re A.J.B. 910 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re A.J.B. 910 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Hall , d at 856 (citing Rew v. Bergstrom , , 780 (Minn. 2014) ).
State v. Hensel 901 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 2017
Linert v. MacDonald 901 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Linert v. MacDonald 901 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of: Marissa Jean Newton-Denila, on behalf of minor children v. Ejiro Elqanah Newton-Denila Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-06 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding that evidence of domestic abuse that occurred about two years earlier is too remote to support the grant of an OFP).
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
rp or radical departure from its previous decisions or approach to the law and when we discern no persuasive reason to follow such a departure”; (2) the United States Supreme Court has “retrenched on Bill of Rights issues”; or (3) federal precedent “does not adequately protect our citizens’ basic rights and liberties.” () (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. William Alphonso Warr Minn. Ct. App. 2017
V (providing Double Jeopardy Clause); (noting that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects an individual from multiple punishme nts for the same crime and from a second prosecution after acquittal or conviction).
Paula Polinsky v. Charles M. Bolton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of: Amanda Jean Vail v. Ryan Joseph Vail Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Dennis D. Linehan v. Emily Johnson Piper, Commissioner of Department of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law.”
In re Olson ex rel. A.C.O. v. Olson 892 N.W.2d 837 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re Olson ex rel. A.C.O. v. Olson 892 N.W.2d 837 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of: Angel A. Fernandez v. Cindy Marbella Anariba Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of: Angel A. Fernandez v. Cindy Marbella Anariba Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minnesota courts conduct “a two-step analysis to determine whether the government has violated an individual’s procedural due process rights.”
State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Diane C. Anderson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Diane C. Anderson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, –88 (Minn. 2014) (holding there was no procedural due process violation when the district court declined to hear testimonial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Final Exit Network, Inc. 889 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Final Exit Network, Inc. 889 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
see also Marks v. U.S., 430 U.S. 188, 191–92, 97 S. Ct. 990, 992–93 (1977) (clarifying that the rights protected by these clauses are protected against judicial action by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment).