Cited by

“Congressional purpose is the ultimate touchstone of the preemption inquiry.” Gretsch v. Vantium Cap., Inc., -33 (Minn. 2014).

When the statute was in force and effect at the time the contract was made, there is no impairment, because existing statutes are read into future contracts and enter into the contract terms by implication.” Gretsch v. Vantium Cap., Inc.

See, e.g. , d 490, 499 (Minn. 2024) (analyzing standing based on language of Minnesota Statutes section 204B.44(a) (2022)); Gretsch v. Vantium Cap., Inc., (analyzing standing based on language of Minnesota Statutes section 58.18, subdivision 1 (2012)); Citizens for a d 13, 18 (Minn. App. 2003) (analyzing standing based on language of Minnesota Statutes 52 section 462.361, subdivision 1 (200

“The contracts clauses [of the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution] prevent retroactive impairment of contracts[,]” but “[w]hen the statute was in force and effect at the time the contract was made, there is no impairment, because existing statutes are read into future contracts and enter into the contract terms by implication.” Gretsch v. Vantium Cap., Inc.

Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc.

“In all preemption cases, and particularly those in which Congress has legislated in a field that the states have traditionally occupied”—like workers’ compensation—we begin “with the assumption that the historic police powers of the states were not superseded by the federal act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Gretsch v. Vantium Cap., Inc.

Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc.

Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc.

Gretsch v. Vantium Cap., Inc.

14 “Congressional purpose is the ultimate touchstone of the preemption inquiry.” Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc., - 33 (Minn. 2014).

See Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc., (stating that constitutional questions are reviewed de novo); City of Morris v. Sax Invs., Inc. , (“The a pplication of statutes, administrative regulations, and local ordinances to undisputed facts is a legal conclusion and is reviewed de novo.”).

Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc.

Statutory interpretation and federal preemption are questions of law, Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc., and an appellate court reviews de novo a district court’s preemption ruling, Pharm.

See Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc. , , 429 (Minn. 2014).

Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc.

Under the implied conflict preemption doctrine, federal law preempts a state law if “it is impossible for a private party to comply with both the state and federal requirements” or if “the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the purpose and objective of Congress.” Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc.

“A plaintiff may have standing in two ways: either the plaintiff has suffered some ‘injury-in- fact’ or the plaintiff is the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.” Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc., (quotation omitted).

No. 306, 276 Minn. 549, 551, (construing grant of motion for summary judgment as such because district court considered three affidavits); cf. Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc., n.4 (Minn. 2014) (construing grant of motion to dismiss as such because, even though district court converted motion and considered affidavit, all documents necessary to resolution of appellate issues were referenced in complaint).

P. 12.02(e), we consider “only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as 27 true and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc., ().

upreme court has warned, “[preemption of state law by federal statute or regulation is not favored in the absence of pervasive reasons — either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained.” (quotations omitted); see also Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc., (“We have ...

“A plaintiff may have standing in two ways: either the plaintiff has suffered some ‘injury-in-fact’ or the plaintiff is the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.” Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc.