Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fosselman v. Commissioner of Human Services, 612 N.W.2d 456.

23 citing documents.

Margaret Reynolds, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Servs., (concluding that disqualification proceedings are subject to procedural- due-process requirements due to protected property and liberty interests involved).
Basswood Residence, Inc., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Matter of Joseph Rued, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
this court reasoned that the sixth criterion confers a right to a fair hearing on any person who has a constitutional right to a hearing.
Nicole Monique Collins, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Servs., (concluding that disqualification proceedings are subject to procedural due-process requirements due to relators’ protected property and liberty interests in holding employment and protecting their reputations) .
Zayna Shire, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A. L. G., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 456, 461 (Minn. App. 2000) (“[D]isqualification proceedings are subject to the requirements of procedural due process.”).
Bradley J. Pass, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Fosselman v. Comm’r of Human Servs., (quoting Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269, 90 S. Ct. 1011, 1021 (1970)) (“In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses.”).
Dwayne Eugene Jackson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
K.A.J., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 456, 461 (Minn. App. 2000).
Shonwta Demar Jackson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Fosselman v. Comm’r of Human Servs.
Audrey Melody Ashford, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ogbonna Iwu, Relator v. Minneapolis City Council Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ogbonna Iwu, Relator v. Minneapolis City Council Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 Iwu argues that his procedural due-process rights were violated because the city failed to properly notify him of the revocation action.1 “[T]he due process protections granted under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions are identical,” Fosselman v. Comm’r of Human Servs., and “[t]his court reviews the procedural due process afforded a party de novo.” Staeheli, d at 304.
Thompson v. Commissioner of Health 778 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Thompson v. Commissioner of Health 778 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“[T]he due process protections granted under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions are identical.” Fosselman v. Comm’r of Human Servs.
Obara v. Minnesota Department of Health 758 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Distinguished Obara v. Minnesota Department of Health 758 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
But we distinguished Sweet from Fosselman v. Comm’r of Human Servs., in which the evidence supporting a disqualification decision was in dispute, and from Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 260 , 90 S.Ct.
Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 755 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 755 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Fosselman v. Comm’r of Human Servs.
Sweet v. Commissioner of Human Services 702 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Sweet v. Commissioner of Human Services 702 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Fosselman v. Comm’r of Human Servs., (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct.
Pomrenke v. Commissioner of Commerce 677 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Pomrenke v. Commissioner of Commerce 677 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
537, 540-41 (1935) (stating that the right to earn one’s livelihood in any legitimate business is a right of property, and any unlawful or unreasonable interference with that right is a restriction of the liberty of the citizen as guaranteed by the Constitution); Fosselman v. Comm’r of Human Servs., (finding that registered nurses had property interest in working in positions that' involved direct contact with patients); Humenansky v. Minn. Bd.