Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Skeen v. State, 505 N.W.2d 299.

33 citing documents.

Alejandro Cruz-Guzman, as guardian and next friend of his minor children v. State of Minnesota, ... Minn. 2023
Alejandro Cruz-Guzman, as guardian and next friend of his minor children v. State of Minnesota, ... Minn. 2023
More recently, we have held that education is “a fundamental right under the state constitution, not only because of its overall importance to the state but also because of the explicit language used to describe this constitutional mandate.” d 299, 313 (Minn. 1993).
Alejandro Cruz-Guzman, as guardian and next friend of his minor children, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
More recently, in which a group of 52 school districts and 10 parents claimed that the statewide education-finance system violated the Education Clause, the supreme court held that because the plaintiffs were “unable to establish that the basic system [was] inadequate” and “the existing system 9 continue[d] to
Jennifer Schroeder, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In addition, the supreme court has stated that “fundamental rights are those which have their origin in the express terms of the Constitution or which are necessarily to be implied from those terms.” Skeen v. State , (Mi nn.
Minn. 2021
N.H., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The Minnesota Constitution protects the right of its people to “a general and uniform system of public schools” that are “thorough and efficient.” Minn. Const. art. XIII, § 1; (“We hold that education is a fundamental right under the state constitution”); 11 (Minn. 2018) (noting that Education Clause “imposes an explicit ‘duty’ on the Legislature” (quotation omitted) ).
Forslund v. State 924 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Forslund v. State 924 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Although the claims here target specific educational policies, it is difficult to discern a difference for justiciability purposes between appellants' challenge to the teacher-tenure, dismissal, and layoff laws and the challenge to the education-finance laws in Skeen v. State
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
The district court concluded that Skeen v. State , had "already held that Minnesota's Education Clause creates a fundamental right to education which will subject any state action that allegedly violates that right, including action by the legislature, to strict judicial scrutiny."
Cruz-Guzman v. State 892 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Cruz-Guzman v. State 892 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Respondents argue that the Minnesota Supreme Court “has already treated educational adequacy as justiciable”
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Re GUARDIANSHIP and CONSERVATORSHIP OF Helen Louise DURAND, Ward/Protected Person 859 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2015
In Re GUARDIANSHIP and CONSERVATORSHIP OF Helen Louise DURAND, Ward/Protected Person 859 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2015
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
State v. Hartmann 700 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2005
In Re the Expulsion of E.J.W. From Independent School District No. 500 632 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Expulsion of E.J.W. From Independent School District No. 500 632 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Minn. Const, art. XIII, § 1 (Education Clause)
Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington 552 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington 552 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
715 , 727 n. 12, 66 L.Ed.2d 659 (1981) (if legislation does not violate equal protection, it does not violate substantive due process either); (standard applied to claims brought under state equal protection clause same as that applied to claims brought under federal equal protection clause); (constitutional challenge under either due process or equal protection of federal or state constit
Ubel v. State 547 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1996
In Re Linehan 544 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re Linehan 544 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
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
(statutes which impinge upon a fundamental right are subject to strict scrutiny by the judiciary).
Roosevelt Elementary School District Number 66 v. Bishop 877 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1994