Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Haggerty, 448 N.W.2d 363.

240 citing documents.

Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The “power to declare a statute unconstitutional should be exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
STUDOR, INC. v. State 781 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
STUDOR, INC. v. State 781 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
We presume the constitutionality of Minnesota statutes, and therefore “our power to declare a statute unconstitutional should be exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional, and our power to declare a statute unconstitutional should be exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
Citizens for Rule of Law v. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration 770 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Citizens for Rule of Law v. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration 770 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(“Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional, and our power to declare a statute unconstitutional [is] exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”).
Jones v. Borchardt 759 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Jones v. Borchardt 759 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional, and our power to declare a statute unconstitutional should be exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In conducting this review, we recognize that “Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional, and our power to declare a statute unconstitutional [is] exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 755 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 755 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“The party challenging a statute has the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of some provision of the Minnesota Constitution.”
Torgelson v. . Real Property Known as 17138 880th Ave., Renville County 749 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2008
Torgelson v. . Real Property Known as 17138 880th Ave., Renville County 749 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2008
(“It was originally proposed that the Minnesota Constitution *28 contain a homestead exemption with a specific dollar limit, Minnesota Convention Debates 99 (1857) (debates of July 24, 1857), but it was determined the constitution should not contain perfect or specific laws.”).
State v. Bussmann 741 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2007
State v. Bussmann 741 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2007
“Minnesota statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and our power to declare a statute unconstitutional should be exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
Mastakoski v. 2003 Dodge Durango, VIN 1D8HS78Z13F530764 738 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Mastakoski v. 2003 Dodge Durango, VIN 1D8HS78Z13F530764 738 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that a person challenging the constitutionality of a statute must “demonstrate!]
State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
Irongate Enterprises Inc. v. County of St. Louis 736 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 2007
Irongate Enterprises Inc. v. County of St. Louis 736 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 2007
Torgelson v. Real Property Known as 17138 880th Ave 734 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Torgelson v. Real Property Known as 17138 880th Ave 734 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
The “power to declare a statute unconstitutional should be exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
Greene v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services 733 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Greene v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services 733 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Minnesota statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the power to declare a statute unconstitutional is “exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
In Re Welfare of C.T.L. 722 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re Welfare of C.T.L. 722 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Minnesota statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and a court’s power to declare a statute unconstitutional “should be exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.” ().
Granville v. Minneapolis School District 716 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Granville v. Minneapolis School District 716 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Minnesota statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the power to declare a statute unconstitutional is “exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Further, “[t]he party challenging a statute has the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of some provision of the Minnesota Constitution.” (holding that person challenging constitutionality of a statute must “demonstrate[ ] beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates some constitutional provision”).
Brink v. Smith Companies Construction, Inc. 703 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Brink v. Smith Companies Construction, Inc. 703 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
We presume that Minnesota statutes are constitutional, and “our power to declare a statute unconstitutional should be exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
Sweet v. Commissioner of Human Services 702 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Sweet v. Commissioner of Human Services 702 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
We presume statutes are constitutional, and we will declare a statute unconstitutional “with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
Unity Church of St. Paul v. State 694 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Unity Church of St. Paul v. State 694 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional, and, therefore, this court exercises its power to declare a statute unconstitutional “with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
County of Stearns v. Barnell 693 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
County of Stearns v. Barnell 693 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional and are declared *461 unconstitutional only “with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
ILHC OF EAGAN, LLC v. County of Dakota 693 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2005
ILHC OF EAGAN, LLC v. County of Dakota 693 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2005
We presume statutes to be constitutional and exercise the power to declare a statute unconstitutional “with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
In Re the Appeal of Rocheleau 686 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Appeal of Rocheleau 686 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional, and our power to declare a statute unconstitutional should be exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
Pomrenke v. Commissioner of Commerce 677 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Pomrenke v. Commissioner of Commerce 677 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2004