Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Estate of Turner, 391 N.W.2d 767.

60 citing documents.

Sally Cooper Smith, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(denying motion to strike a publicly available statistical report because appellate courts “could refer to such a report in the course of [their] own research, if [they] were so inclined”).
In re the Estate of: Joanne Mary Ecklund, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Estate of: Joanne Mary Ecklund, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1(a) (emphasis added); (stating that estate-recovery statute creates a “system whereby money paid to qualified individuals for health care purposes may be recovered and reused to help other similarly situated persons”).
In re City of Cohasset’s Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Frontier … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(denying motion to strike extra- record public report; explaining “we see no reason why a party may not submit such a report to us as part of its brief when we could refer to such a report in the course of our own research, if we were so inclined”); see also White v. Minn. Dep’t. of Nat.
In re the Estate of: Raymond Deforest Trahan, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Estate-recovery programs allow “money paid to qualified individuals for health care purposes” to “be recovered and reused to help other similarly situated persons.”
Louis Reis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re Estate of Turner , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
a matter of public record” in a brief because it “[saw] no reason why a party may not submit such a report to us as part of its brief when we could refer to such a report in the course of our own research, if we were so inclined.”
Jessica Hagen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Minn. 2021
See, (denying motion to strike where documents that were not part of the appellate record concerned various Minnesota and federal sentencing statistics which were publicly available); (denying the estate’s motion to strike because there is “no reason why a party may not submit .
Wayne Nicolaison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
R e s p o n d e n t , Minn. 2021
§ 1396c; In re Estate of Turner
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
To assemble the three-part test, Loew pulled together different “principles” and “fundamental rule[s]” th at we had applied in even 31 represent different ways of stating the same analysis.” d 767, 770 n.2 (Minn. 1986); see also AFSCME Councils 6, 14, 65 & 96 v. Sundquist , –70, 570 n.12 (Minn. 1983) (“Although we have expressed this standard in various ways, the preeminent expression of rationality analysis under the equal protection clause is the requirement that legislative classificati
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
407, 411 (Minn. 2000) ().
Robert Atkinson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(citing Massachusetts Bd .
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
Under both the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution, “all similarly situated individuals shall be treated alike, but only ‘invidious discrimination’ is deemed constitutionally offensive.” Scott, d at 74 ().
State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
Gluba Ex Rel. Gluba v. Bitzan & Ohren Masonry 735 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2007
Gluba Ex Rel. Gluba v. Bitzan & Ohren Masonry 735 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2007
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
State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
Hassinger v. Seeley 707 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hassinger v. Seeley 707 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
But “[t]he equal protection clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions direct that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.” (emphasis added).
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
Kammueller v. Kammueller 672 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Kammueller v. Kammueller 672 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Employers Insurance of Wausau 644 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Employers Insurance of Wausau 644 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Co., , 340 n. 3 (Minn.1995); (denying motion to strike where "[o]n an issue of such magnitude, we see no reason why a party may not submit [a public annual] report to us as part of its brief when we could refer to such a report in the course of our own research, if we were so inclined.”).
Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester 615 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester 615 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(medical assistance serves system “whereby money paid to qualified individuals for health care purposes may be recovered and reused to help other similarly situated persons”).
State v. Rewitzer 617 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 2000
State v. Rewitzer 617 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 2000
As we previously stated in In re Estate of Turner, “we see no reason why a party may not submit * * * a report to us as part of its brief when we could refer to such a report in the course of our own research, if we were so inclined.”
Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 615 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 2000
Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 615 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 2000
(quoting Ferguson v. Skrupa, 872 U.S. 726 , 732, 83 S.Ct.
In re the Risk Level Determination of C.M. 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Matter of Cm 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In re the Risk Level Determination of C.M. 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
The supreme court has accepted the belated introduction of a government-prepared statistical report because “we could refer to such a report in the course of our own research, if we were so inclined.”
Matter of Cm 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Matter of Kindt 542 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Matter of Kindt 542 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Neal v. State Farm Insurance Co. 509 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Neal v. State Farm Insurance Co. 509 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Elbers v. Growe 502 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Elbers v. Growe 502 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Ultraflex Enterprises'appeal 497 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Ultraflex Enterprises'appeal 497 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Krueth v. Independent School District No. 38 496 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Krueth v. Independent School District No. 38 496 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Morrow 492 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1992