Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Holloway, 916 N.W.2d 338.

30 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Denial of Line of Duty Death Benefits for Dallas Edeburn. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re Defense and Indemnification of Alexander Vladimir Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re Defense and Indemnification of Alexander Vladimir Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Denial of Duty Death Benefits for Floyd Jones. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Republican Party of Minnesota v. Nathan Miller, Relators, Attorney General Keith Ellison, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Republican Party of Minnesota v. Nathan Miller, Relators, Attorney General Keith Ellison, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Quoting State v. Holloway, he asserts that application of the statute is constitutional only “if it advances a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to further that interest.” (quotation omitted).
Minn. 2023
See Fletcher Props., d at 27–28 (concluding that, in an equal protection challenge to a Minneapolis ordinance that regulated the circumstances under which a residential landlord could refuse to rent because of housing voucher requirements, the relevant group for the threshold similarly situated comparison was residential landlords); –48 (Minn. 2018) (concluding that, in a statute that made a mistake-of-age defense available to defendants who were 10 or fewer years older than the minor victim of
Minn. 2022
Mehdijaffer Allyakber Mulla, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Similarly, we review de novo whether “a government action violates substantive due process.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The district court denied appellant’s motion, “rejec ted the very same argument that [appellant] advances.” Based upon the stipulated facts, the district court found appellant guilty.
State of Minnesota, by Jan Malcolm, Commissioner of Health, in her Official capacity, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Jennifer Schroeder, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Under Minnesota law, it is necessary to consider a “threshold question” before an alyzing an equal-protec tion claim: “whether the claimant is treated differently from others to whom the claimant is similarly situated in all relevant respects.” (M inn.
Minn. 2021
Similarly, the State has a legitimate interest in the welfare of children, see State v. Holloway , and scrutinizing those who are charged with or convicted of crimes—predominantly those of violence or sexual offenses against children—is rationally related to that end, see Boutin, d at 718.
Minn. 2021
See State v. Holloway , –45 (Minn. 2018).
Minn. 2021
1(a) –(b), (e) –(g); –50 (Minn. 2019) (upholding such differenc es under the due process and equal protection clauses).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5 (Minn. App. 2017), aff’d
N.H., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
Kristopher Lee Roybal, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Christopher Lee Holloway, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
11 claim is determining whether two groups are similarly situated “in all relevant respects.”
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sokkhan Ka, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To establish an equal - protection claim, a claimant must show that “the claimant is treated differently from others 8 to whom the claimant is similarly situated in all relevant respects.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of: Victoria Carlson and Stephen Carlson, Appellants, vs. Pam Wheelock, in her official capacity … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Fletcher Props., Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 931 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Fletcher Props., Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 931 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
" State v. Holloway , , 345 (Minn. 2018) (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U.S. 702 , 720-21, 117 S. Ct. 2258 , 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997) ).
Renee Dianne Florek, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Holloway , (“[Section 609.344, subdivision 1,] require[s] the actor to have the general intent to engage in sexual penetration .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018