Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 396 N.W.2d 10.

53 citing documents.

A16-2034 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
Health Plan, Inc., *874 (Minn.1986)).
Haugen v. Superior Development, Inc. 819 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Haugen v. Superior Development, Inc. 819 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Hoeft v. Hennepin County 754 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Hoeft v. Hennepin County 754 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 721 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2006
Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 721 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2006
But the Minnesota Constitution only protects “remedies for which the legislature has not provided a reasonable substitute.” Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
(Simonett, J., concurring specially).
State v. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 668 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 668 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
27,1992); see also Hickman v. Growp Health Plan, Inc.
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Appellants rely on Justice Simonett’s concurrence in Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., to argue respondents’ cause of action is a prohibited wrongful-birth claim.
Alcozer v. North Country Food Bank 635 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2001
Alcozer v. North Country Food Bank 635 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2001
because the IPP does not provide the same benefits available to workers covered by workers’ compensation, the IPP fails to provide a constitutionally sufficient remedy for Alcozer’s injury, in Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc. we held that: “The purpose of [Minn. Const. art. 1, § 8] is to protect common law rights and remedies for which the legislature has not provided a reasonable substitute.”
Murphy v. Myers 560 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Murphy v. Myers 560 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
d at 518 ; see also Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., (concluding that because of policy problems associated with wrongful birth claims and fact that such actions do not exist at common law, the establishment of such claims is within exclusive jurisdiction of the legislature).
Olson v. Ford Motor Co. 558 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
Olson v. Ford Motor Co. 558 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., (holding that the Remedies Clause of article I, section 8 protects only those causes of action which have vested at common law).
Anker v. Little 541 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Anker v. Little 541 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
4, which precludes introduction of seat belt evidence for any purpose whatsoever); Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., , 16 n. 1 (Minn.1986) (Simonett, J., concurring specially (joined by two other members of the majority) and construing Minn.Stat.
Larson v. Sando 508 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Larson v. Sando 508 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
State v. Kimmons 502 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Kimmons 502 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Jevning v. Cichos 499 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Jevning v. Cichos 499 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., , 14 n. 5 (Minn.1986).
Minnesota Federation of Teachers v. Mammenga 485 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Minnesota Federation of Teachers v. Mammenga 485 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
A statute is presumed constitutional, and the challenger has the heavy burden of demonstrating unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.
Johnson v. State 478 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Johnson v. State 478 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Swelbar v. Lahti 473 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Swelbar v. Lahti 473 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
21, 1990); see also Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., , 16 n. 1 (Minn.1986) (one who transports child in a car without child restraint system violates criminal law, but the violation cannot be basis of suit for damages).
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
See Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Willette v. the Mayo Foundation 458 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Willette v. the Mayo Foundation 458 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Olson v. Blaeser 458 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Olson v. Blaeser 458 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
State v. Willenbring 454 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Willenbring 454 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal 453 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1990
Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal 453 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1990
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis 441 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1989
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis 441 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1989
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., citing Minnesota Higher Education Facilities Authority v. Hawk, 305 Minn. 97
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. 432 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1988