Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mitchell v. Steffen, 504 N.W.2d 198.

29 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 759 (1966)
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
d at 888 n.2 (distinguish ing federal equal protection la w where stricter scrutiny is applied only where the legislature enacted a pa rticular statute because of, not merely in spite of, its anticipated discriminatory effect); 28 A. Legislative bodies regularly, and for ma ny different reasons, pa ss laws that treat people differently.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 198, 200 (Minn. 1993) (citing Attorney Gen.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Mitchell v. Steffen , 203 (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. David William Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. David William Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minnesota recognizes the right to interstate travel, which “is implicated when a statute actually deters such travel, when impeding travel is [a statute’s] primary objective, or when [a statute] uses any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right.” (emphasis omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Allen Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Allen Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brooks also argues that the district court’s application of the seat-belt statute violates his right to interstate travel, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.3 “The right to interstate travel is a fundamental right recognized by the United States Constitution.” ().
Weir v. ACCRA Care, Inc. 828 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Weir v. ACCRA Care, Inc. 828 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
at 889-90 ; aff'd, (analyzing the equal-protection claim under the U.S. Constitution only).
Healthstar Home Health, Inc. v. Jesson 827 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Healthstar Home Health, Inc. v. Jesson 827 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
This court has held that the Minnesota rational-basis test “applies when analyzing any case under the equal protection clause of the Minnesota Constitution.” , 904 n. 2 (Minn.App.1992), affd
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629-31 , 89 S.Ct.
State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
Greene v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services 755 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2008
Greene v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services 755 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2008
Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 500, 502 , 119 S.Ct.
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
But when we apply rational basis review under art. I, § 2 of the Minnesota Constitution, we have sometimes applied a “higher standard.” (Tomlja-novich, J., dissenting) (likening Minnesota’s approach to rational basis review to “mid-level” scrutiny).
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
ification and the statutory goals”); Russell, d at 889 (stating that the three-prong Minnesota rational basis test is "our stricter standard of rational basis of review” and holding that the stricter version is "particularly appropriate” where there is a disproportionate burden "on the very class of persons whose history inspired the principles of equal protection”); (Tomljanovich, J., dissenting) (dissent characterizing the Russell three-part test as a mid- *75 level of scrutiny and proposing t
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Nevels v. State, Department of Human Services 590 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Nevels v. State, Department of Human Services 590 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
at 701-02 (when deciding persuasive value of agency interpretation, courts consider consistency with earlier and later pronouncements); (declining to prospectively apply holding that state welfare statute was unconstitutional and ordering retroactive benefits under the statute that existed before the unconstitutional amendments), aff'd, (issue of retroactive benefits not subject of review).
State v. Cuypers 559 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Cuypers 559 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
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