Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Russell, 477 N.W.2d 886.

119 citing documents.

Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
In so contending, plaintiffs rely on Russell, .
State v. Brown 689 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Brown 689 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Garcia 683 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2004
State v. Garcia 683 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2004
State v. Benniefield 678 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2004
State v. Benniefield 678 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2004
State v. Serena 673 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Serena 673 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Likewise, we apply a rational-basis standard under the Minnesota Constitution and require “a reasonable connection between the actual, and not just the theoretical, effect of the challenged classification and the statutory goals.” -89 (Minn.1991) (citations omitted).
Kammueller v. Kammueller 672 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Kammueller v. Kammueller 672 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
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
appellants contend that the Minnesota Supreme Court has implied that strict scrutiny is warranted in cases where a statute’s application results in disparate impact.
State v. Gresser 657 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Gresser 657 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
there must be a legitimate purpose to the governmental action and a "reasonable connection between the actual, not just the theoretical, effect of the challenged classification and the * * * goals,” which warrants a new trial.
State v. Frazier 649 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2002
State v. Frazier 649 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2002
Finally, the state argued that even if the data did demonstrate that section 609.229 has a discriminatory impact, -90 (Minn.1991).
Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
Everything Etched, Inc. v. Shakopee Towing, Inc. 634 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Everything Etched, Inc. v. Shakopee Towing, Inc. 634 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
But unlike the federal courts, when Minnesota courts apply a rational-basis review, we are “unwilling to hypothesize a rational basis to justify a classification, as the more deferential federal standard requires.”
State v. Frazier 631 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Frazier 631 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Bradley 629 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Bradley 629 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
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
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
See State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 21 , -23 (1961) (Minnesota’s due process standard may be developed independent of federal law); (declining to lower Minnesota’s standards for searches and seizures to federal level); (equal protection analysis under Minnesota law more stringent than federal law); -98 (Minn.1990) (greater religious liberties under state law than under federal law); -81 (Minn.1988) (12-member jury required under state but not
State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
Lundberg Ex Rel. Lundberg v. Jeep Corp. 582 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Lundberg Ex Rel. Lundberg v. Jeep Corp. 582 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(Simo-nett, J., concurring) (citing Minn. Const, art. 1, §§ 16 and 2).
Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
cited in Blodgett, d at 917 .
Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
Safety, (right to counsel at the chemical testing stage of a DWI proceeding); (adopting stricter equal protection rational basis standard than federal courts); (religious liberties); (bodily integrity); (fundamental right of education); State v. Ha
In Re the Welfare of L.J.S. 539 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re the Welfare of L.J.S. 539 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
Acknowledging that there is no violation of the jury requirements of the United States Constitution, 9 McKenzie urges us to inter *221 pret the Minnesota Constitution to provide additional constitutional protection, as we have, for example, Friedman v. Comm’r. of Public Safety
Knudtson v. City of Coates 519 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1994
In Re the Welfare of K.C. 513 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re the Welfare of K.C. 513 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
The supreme court has held that under the state constitution equal protection requires “a reasonable connection between the actual, and not just the theoretical, effect of the challenged classification and the statutory goals.”
In Re Blodgett 510 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1994
In Re Blodgett 510 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1994
and also at 895 (Simonett, J., concurring opinion); (Tomljanovich, J., dissenting opinion), pet.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by