Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 392 N.W.2d 558.

40 citing documents.

Queen City Construction, Inc. v. City of Rochester 604 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Queen City Construction, Inc. v. City of Rochester 604 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
759, 761 (1892); see also Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 379-80 , -76 (1955) (“the motives of the legislative body in enacting any particular legislation are not the proper subject of judicial inquiry”); (“[Post-session] testimony by individual legislators regarding the legislative intent is inadmissible in construing a statute”).
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co., (holding insurers have standing to contest commissioner’s decision because insurers’ impaired interests were intended to be protected by Minnesota’s No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act).
Continental Casualty Insurance Co. v. Teachers Insurance Co. 532 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Continental Casualty Insurance Co. v. Teachers Insurance Co. 532 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Petition of D & a Truck Line, Inc. 524 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Petition of D & a Truck Line, Inc. 524 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Co., (party seeking judicial review of agency action must be aggrieved by that action) (quoting In re Getsug, 290 Minn. 110, 114 , ).
Matter of Black 522 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Matter of Black 522 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Co., (Commissioner’s power should be construed within the context of the “necessity and logic of the situation.”).
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Minnesota State Board of Education 499 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Minnesota State Board of Education 499 N.W.2d 846 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
Schoenborn v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 495 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Schoenborn v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 495 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Co., (emphasis in original).
Neuman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 492 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1992
Neuman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 492 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1992
Co., and further in Austin Mut.
Neuman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 480 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Neuman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 480 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Amoco Pipeline Co. v. Minnesota Valley Landscaping, Inc. 467 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Amoco Pipeline Co. v. Minnesota Valley Landscaping, Inc. 467 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Co., (statements made by sponsor of bill are “given substantial weight in ascertaining legislative intent”).
In Re Sentry Insurance Payback Program Filing 447 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re Sentry Insurance Payback Program Filing 447 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
§ 70A.06 gives the Commissioner “the power and duty to review and approve all policy forms issued in Minnesota” and that this statutory authority “need not be given a cramped reading.”
Austin Mutual Insurance Co. v. Templin 435 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Austin Mutual Insurance Co. v. Templin 435 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Ballavance v. Safeco Insurance Co. 432 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ballavance v. Safeco Insurance Co. 432 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Until this court decided parties to insurance contracts had no legislative or judicial guidance as to whether the legislature intended to permit stacking.
Federal Land Bank of Saint Paul v. Obermoller 429 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Federal Land Bank of Saint Paul v. Obermoller 429 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See County of Washington v. A.F.S.C.M.E., Council No. 91, (“affidavits of individual legislators are not competent to impeach the text of the enrolled bill”); (legislators’ testimony at a contested case hearing about the intent of the legislature when it enacted bills was inadmissible; "Subsequent testimony by individual legislators regarding legislative intent is inadmissible in construing a statute”).
Hanson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 417 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 1987
Hanson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 417 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 1987
Broton v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 413 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Broton v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 413 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In this court had to determine which of the two irreconcilable provisions was effective.
Bouza v. Gallagher 416 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bouza v. Gallagher 416 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Washington County v. AFSCME, Council No. 91, ("the affidavits of individual legislators are not competent to impeach the text of the enrolled bill”); (‘‘[post-session] testimony by individual legislators regarding the legislative intent is inadmissible in *130 construing a statute"); see also Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 379-80 , -76 (1955) ("the motives of the legislative body in enacting any particular legislatio
Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 413 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 413 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In this court had to determine which of the two irreconcilable provisions was effective.
In Re the Proposed Activation of the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass'n 408 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Proposed Activation of the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass'n 408 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(quoting In re Getsug, 290 Minn. 110, 114 , ).