Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ganguli v. University of Minnesota, 512 N.W.2d 918.

124 citing documents.

In Re the Estate of Grote 766 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Estate of Grote 766 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
of Mn., , 919 n. 1 (Minn.App.1994).
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
of Minn., , 919 n. 1 (Minn.App.1994); see also State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (refusing to consider issues raised for first time on appeal).
Riley Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Shuck 704 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Riley Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Shuck 704 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
of Minn., , 919-20 n. 1 (Minn.App.1994) (stating court need not address allegations unsupported by legal argument).
Behr v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 638 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Behr v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 638 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
of Minn., , 919-20 n. 1 (Minn.App.1994) (appellate courts may decline to address allegations unsupported by legal analysis or citation).
Hentges v. Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources 638 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Hentges v. Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources 638 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
of Minnesota, , 919 n. 1 (Minn.App.1994).
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 622 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 622 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to reach issue in absence of adequate briefing); , 919 n. 1 (Minn.App.1994) (declining to address allegations unsupported by legal analysis or citation).
Stephens v. Board of Regents of University of Minnesota 614 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Stephens v. Board of Regents of University of Minnesota 614 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
ped by the university in reaching its decision and is necessarily confined to questions affecting the jurisdiction of the decision-maker, the regularity of the proceedings, and, regarding the merits of the dispute, whether the decision was “arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” ( (quotation omitted)).
In Re Liquidation of National Family Insurance Corp. 603 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Liquidation of National Family Insurance Corp. 603 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
919 n. 1 (Minn.App.1994) (allegations unsupported by analysis or citation will not be addressed).
Whalen Ex Rel. Whalen v. Whalen 594 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Whalen Ex Rel. Whalen v. Whalen 594 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
919 n. 1 (Minn.App.1994).
Buchwald v. University of Minnesotsa 573 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Buchwald v. University of Minnesotsa 573 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Markwardt v. State, Water Resources Bd., (decision is arbitrary and capricious when it represents an agency’s will and not its judgment); (university’s decision may be arbitrary if it violates its own procedures).
Zahavy v. University of Minnesota 544 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Zahavy v. University of Minnesota 544 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
948, 955 , 55 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978); review denied (Minn. Mar.
Chronopoulos v. University of Minnesota 520 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Chronopoulos v. University of Minnesota 520 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1994