Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Consolidated Hospital Surcharge Appeals of GILLETTE CHILDREN’S SPECIALTY HEALTHCARE…, 883 N.W.2d 778.

48 citing documents.

Tanya Hipkins, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Surcharge Appeals, see also CUP Foods, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis , rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Unlicensed Debt Collection Activity of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Unlicensed Debt Collection Activity of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc Minn. Ct. App. 2025
5a(d) (2024); In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare, d 778, 785 (Minn. 2016) (“On review from an order granting summary disposition, the scope of our review is governed by MAPA.”).
Minnesota Teamsters Service Bureau v. GoodRx, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Minnesota Teamsters Service Bureau v. GoodRx, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare, -85 (Minn. 2016).
In the Matter of QC Training Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Surcharge Appeals, accord Minn. R. 1400.5500(K) (2023).
Brad Hammerberg, as trustee for the Leonard J. and Margaret T. Schubert Irrevocable Trust, dated June 23, 2005, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Brad Hammerberg, as trustee for the Leonard J. and Margaret T. Schubert Irrevocable Trust, dated June 23, 2005, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare, -85 (Minn. 2016).
Deborah Jane Clapp v. Rochelle Cox, in her official capacity as Interim Superintendent of Minneapolis ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Deborah Jane Clapp v. Rochelle Cox, in her official capacity as Interim Superintendent of Minneapolis ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re Gillette Child.’s Specialty Healthcare
Ingrid Jorgensen, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
While we review de novo whether a party has standing to sue, In re Gillette Child.’s Specialty Healthcare, we review for clear error the district court’s factual findings underlying its decision on standing, see Porch v. Gen.
Lisa Stone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Surcharge Appeals, d 778, 784 (Minn. 2016).
In re the Margaret A. Flolid Trust Agreement Dated December 12, 1994. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re Gillette Child .’s Specialty Healthcare, .
Asha Ahmed, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Surcharge Appeals of Gillette Child.’s Specialty Healthcare, -85 (Minn. 2016).
In the Matter of: Michael Hein. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare
Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re Gillette Children ’s Specialty Healthcare
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re Gillette Children’ s Specialty Healthcare , -85 (Minn. 2016).
In the Matter of: Hayat Muse. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare
Theresa K. Williams, Personal Representative of the Estate of Kristen Nicole Kuether, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare
Faith Technologies, Inc., Respondent, Biosar America, LLC, Respondent, Frattalone Companies, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
25, 2015); see also In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare, ( noting this court is bound by opinions of United States Supreme Court and Minnesota Supreme Court when interpreting federal statute s), aff’d
Midland Funding LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare
Catherine Jordan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare, -84 (Minn. 2016) (“Under Minnesota law, [s]tanding is acquired in two ways: either the plaintiff has suffered some injury-in-fact or the plaintiff is the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.” (quotation omitted)).
A19-0355 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare
A18-2095 A18-2159 A18-2163 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 19-20; see also In re Gillette Children’s Specia lty Healthcare , (“We review an administrative agency’s interpretation of federal statutes de novo.”).
In the Matter of the Lindmark Endowment for Corporate-Business Ethics Fund. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare , d 778, 784 (Minn. 2016).
In the Matter of Minnesota Living Assistance, Inc., d/b/a Baywood Home Care. Minn. 2019
In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare
In the Matter of Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-RM2. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Because standing is a jurisdictional issue , we evaluate a decision on standing de novo.” In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare, (quotation omitted).
Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota Land Development, LLC, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare , ; n.7 (Minn. 2012) (recognizing that standing presents a jurisdictional question).
In the Matter of Safelite Solutions, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare
Miller v. Soo Line R.R. Co. 925 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Miller v. Soo Line R.R. Co. 925 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See In re Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare , , 519 (Minn. App. 2015) ("When interpreting a federal statute, this court is bound by the opinions of the United States Supreme Court and the opinions of the Minnesota Supreme Court that interpret and apply federal law."), aff'd
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And “[w]hen interpreting a federal statute, this court is bound by the opinions of the United States Supreme Court and the opinions of the 20 Minnesota Supreme Court that interpret and apply federal law.” In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare, aff’d
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
In re Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare , , 785 (Minn. 2016).
Verhein v. Piper 917 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Verhein v. Piper 917 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Manor Warehouse & Delivery, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare, (explaining that tax court is executive branch agency and its decisions are not binding precedent), aff’d
In the Appeal of: SH RG For: Northstar Adoption Assistance Minn. Ct. App. 2018
19 reasonable interpretation’ of the federal statute,” otherwise known as Chevron deference.10 In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare, (emphasis omitted) (quoting Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 586-87, 120 S. Ct. 1655, 1662 (2000)) , aff’d, ).
Laymon v. Minnesota Premier Properties, LLC 903 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Laymon v. Minnesota Premier Properties, LLC 903 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis 891 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2017
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis 891 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2017
The district court considered field preemption, express preemption, and conflict preemption, (explaining that preemption may be found “ ‘by express provision, by implication, or by a conflict' ” with other laws (quoting N.Y.
Troy K. Scheffler v. City of Anoka, City of Coon Rapids, Hicken, Scott, Howard & Anderson, P. A. 890 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Troy K. Scheffler v. City of Anoka, City of Coon Rapids, Hicken, Scott, Howard & Anderson, P. A. 890 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare
In the Matter of HIBBING TACONITE MINE AND STOCKPILE PROGRESSION and Williams Creek Project Specific Wetland Mitigation 888 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of HIBBING TACONITE MINE AND STOCKPILE PROGRESSION and Williams Creek Project Specific Wetland Mitigation 888 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Summary disposition is the administrative equivalent of summary judgment.” In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare, (quotation omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by