Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Irwin v. Surdyk's Liquor, 599 N.W.2d 132.

36 citing documents.

James Jurgensen, Relator, vs. Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc., and TBG Claims Services, Respondents Minn. 2025
James Jurgensen, Relator, vs. Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc., and TBG Claims Services, Respondents Minn. 2025
The WCCA did not err by affirming the compensation judge’s denial of excess attorney fees under Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor
Bobby Lykins, by George Duranske, conservator, Respondent, vs. Anderson Contracting, Inc., and SFM Mutual Insurance Co.,... Minn. 2025
Bobby Lykins, by George Duranske, conservator, Respondent, vs. Anderson Contracting, Inc., and SFM Mutual Insurance Co.,... Minn. 2025
Ellig’s letter stated that he had attached the Statement and Exhibits to the 2 Roraff fees are “fees based on and related to the recovery of medical expenses.” Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor, see also Roraff v. State, Dep’t of Transp.
Sela Investments, Ltd LLP v. J. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Sela Investments, Ltd LLP v. J. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
r is the inherent authority “to make the final decision.” (striking down statute requiring attorney fees paid to be diverted into state’s general fund rather than into separate fund for use in administration of bar because statute infringed on judiciary’s “inherent power to regulate the practice of law”); see also Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor, -42 (Minn. 1992) (striking portion of attorney-fee statute because it removed district court’s authority to have final decision over attorney-fee determinatio
Minn. 2021
–40 (Minn. 1999) (acknowledging that the WCCA does not have subject matter jurisdiction over constitutional claims).
Hufnagel v. Deer River Health Care Ctr. 915 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 2018
Hufnagel v. Deer River Health Care Ctr. 915 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 2018
See Irwin v. Surdyk's Liquor , , 142 (Minn. 1999) (remanding to the WCCA for determination of reasonable fee award based on multiple factors); Roraff v. State Dep't.
Boundary Waters Bank v. William H. McGaughey, Lian Y. McGaughey Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Boundary Waters Bank v. William H. McGaughey, Lian Y. McGaughey Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Further, in Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor, the supreme court held that a statutory maximum on an attorney-fees award is unconstitutional as a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers when there is no final judicial review of the award.
Donald D. David v. Bartel Enterprises (Nitro Green), Relator, and SFM Mutual Insurance Company, Relator. 856 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2014
Donald D. David v. Bartel Enterprises (Nitro Green), Relator, and SFM Mutual Insurance Company, Relator. 856 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2014
Although we held in Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor, that a statutory maximum on an attorney-fee award violated the separation of powers because there was no final judicial review of that award, we have not considered whether an attorney-fee award less than the statutory maximum must also be subject to judicial review.
Curtis B. Braatz v. Parsons Electric Company and Zurich North America/GAB Robins, Inc., Relators. 850 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2014
Curtis B. Braatz v. Parsons Electric Company and Zurich North America/GAB Robins, Inc., Relators. 850 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2014
(1)(a)(1) (2012), that exceeded the amount of the benefits awarded to the employee when the compensation judge considered the factors in Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor, to ensure that the attorney recovered a reasonable amount of fees for representing the employee.
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
Beuning Family LP v. County of Stearns 817 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 2012
Minh Nguyen v. Audio Communications & SFM Mutual Insurance Co. 814 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2012
Minh Nguyen v. Audio Communications & SFM Mutual Insurance Co. 814 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2012
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“Notwithstanding the separation of powers doctrine, there has never been an absolute division of governmental functions in this country, nor was such even intended.” Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor, (quotation omitted).
Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc. 685 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2004
Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc. 685 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2004
See Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor
Banken v. Lac Qui Parle Coop Oil 672 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 2003
Banken v. Lac Qui Parle Coop Oil 672 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 2003
7.” (Citing Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor, (“[Ujnder the plain language of the statute, a subdivision 7 award should be based on all attorney fees paid pursuant to Minn.Stat.
Gerding v. Commissioner of Public Safety 628 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gerding v. Commissioner of Public Safety 628 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
P. 144; Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor, , 137 *200 (Minn. 1999).
State v. Schwartz 615 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Schwartz 615 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In support of his argument that Minnesota’s parole system constitutes executive interference with the judiciary, Schwartz cites two recent Minnesota Supreme Court cases, and Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor
Anderson v. Rengachary 608 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2000
Vezina v. Best Western Inn, Maplewood 601 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1999
Vezina v. Best Western Inn, Maplewood 601 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1999
§ 176.081 is declined and the matter remanded to the compensation judge in light of Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor
Friedges v. Independent School District 719 600 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1999
Friedges v. Independent School District 719 600 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1999
ORDER Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed May 17, 1999, be, and the same is, reversed and the matter is remanded for further consideration in light of Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor