Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Matter of Blilie, 494 N.W.2d 877.

142 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Antwone Ford, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. David William Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. David William Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ethan Dean v. City of Winona 868 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
Ethan Dean v. City of Winona 868 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
2791 , 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976) (holding that a judge’s order limiting the press’s reports about a trial would escape judicial scrutiny because such orders would always expire before appellate review), and short-term mental-health confinement orders, -81 (Minn.1993) (concluding that the issue of whether plaintiff’s treatment by neuroleptic medication upon her guardian’s consent was constitutional was capable of repetition yet evaded review because, although plaintiff had been discharged from state
State v. Bussmann 741 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2007
State v. Bussmann 741 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2007
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
Miller v. One 2001 Pontiac Aztek 669 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2003
Miller v. One 2001 Pontiac Aztek 669 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 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
(quoting Sherek v. Indep.
State v. Fingal 666 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Fingal 666 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Cunningham 663 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Cunningham 663 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Accordingly, this court “is not bound by the lower court’s conclusions.” (quoting Sherek v. Indep.
State v. Coleman 661 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Grillo 661 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Coleman 661 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Grillo 661 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Gresser 657 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Gresser 657 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Accordingly, this court “is not bound by the lower court’s conclusions.” In re Blilie, *879 (quoting Sherek v. Indep.
In re P.T. 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re PT 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In re P.T. 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
ANALYSIS “In evaluating challenges to the constitutionality of statutes, this court recognizes that the interpretation of statutes is a question of law.” (citation omitted).
In Re PT 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Schluter 653 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Schluter 653 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
County of Benton v. Kismet Investors, Inc. 653 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
County of Benton v. Kismet Investors, Inc. 653 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Accordingly, this court “is not bound by the lower court’s conclusions.” (quoting Sherek v. Indep.
State v. Henning 644 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Henning 644 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Accordingly, this court “is not bound by the lower court’s conclusions.” (quoting Sherek v. Indep.
In Re Kindschy 634 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Kindschy 634 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Frazier 631 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Frazier 631 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“In evaluating challenges to the constitutionality of statutes, * * * the interpretation of statutes is a question of law.” (citation omitted).
State v. Pearson 633 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Pearson 633 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“In evaluating challenges to the constitutionality of statutes, this court recognizes that the interpretation of statutes is a question of law.” (citation omitted).
Piche v. Independent School District No. 621 634 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Piche v. Independent School District No. 621 634 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“In evaluating challenges to the constitutionality of statutes, this court recognizes that the interpretation of statutes is a question of law.” (citation omitted).
Defenders of Wildlife v. Ventura 632 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Defenders of Wildlife v. Ventura 632 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Appellants challenge the constitutionality of chapter 463 by arguing that it violates Minn. Const. Art. IV § 17, which requires that “no laws shall embrace more than one subject.” “In evaluating challenges to the constitutionality of statutes, this court recognizes that the interpretation of statutes is a question of law.” (citation omitted).
In Re the June 9, 2000 Fence Viewing Petition of Bailey 626 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the June 9, 2000 Fence Viewing Petition of Bailey 626 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Walker v. Itasca County Auditor 624 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2001