Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hyland, 431 N.W.2d 868.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- In re the Matter of: Talea Glesener, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Gerding, 628 N .W.2d at 200 -01 n.2 (citing State v. Hyland
- James Edward Boutto v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
James Edward Boutto v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Hayes v. Comm’r of Public Safety, (rejecting Hayes’s equal-protection challenge to the implied-consent law based, in part, on Hayes’s failure to offer evidence of discrimination); d 868, 873 (Minn. App. 1988) (concluding that Hyland’s “general, conclusory allegation that discriminatory enforcement occurred” was “frivolous”).
- State v. Fellegy 819 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-
State v. Fellegy
819 N.W.2d 700
Minn. Ct. App. 2012
To trigger a pretrial hearing, the defendant must meet a threshold showing of alleging “sufficient facts to take the question past the frivolous state and to raise a reasonable doubt as to the prosecutor’s purpose.”
- State v. Reinke 702 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-
State v. Reinke
702 N.W.2d 308
Minn. Ct. App. 2005
A showing of unreasonableness requires that the challenging party prove that the ordinance “has no substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).
- Thul v. State 657 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-
Thul v. State
657 N.W.2d 611
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Although criminal prosecutions are presumed to have been undertaken in good faith and in a nondiscriminatory manner, (MinmApp.
- Gerding v. Commissioner of Public Safety 628 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- Gerding v. Commissioner of Public Safety 628 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- Hard Times Cafe, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 625 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- Hard Times Cafe, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 625 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- Northern States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale 588 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale
588 N.W.2d 534
Minn. Ct. App. 1999
To prove an ordinance is unreasonable, a complaining party must show that it “has no substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.” (quoting County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 100 , ).
- Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids 559 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-
Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids
559 N.W.2d 444
Minn. Ct. App. 1997
To prove an ordinance is unreasonable, a complaining party must show that it “has no substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.” (quoting County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 100 , ).
- State v. Stallman 519 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- State v. Stallman 519 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-
State v. Jones
451 N.W.2d 55
Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The issue of discriminatory enforcement should be decided prior to a trial on the merits because “it does not go to the guilt or innocence of the particular defendant.” (quoting Buschette, 307 Minn. at 66 , d at 503 ).