Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Manufactured Housing Institute v. Pettersen, 347 N.W.2d 238.

62 citing documents.

Builders Association of the Twin Cities, d/b/a Housing First Minnesota, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Pettersen , 15 (Minn. 1984)).
Minn. 2021
v. Pettersen , (apply ing rational basis to a Minnesota Health Department rule setting a maximum indoor ai r level of formaldehyde).
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al., Petitioners, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
v. Pettersen, (providing that review under Minn. Stat. § 14.44 is on agency record).
1A Smart Start, Inc., et al., Petitioners, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Property Located at 5420 44th Avenue S. Located in Minneapolis, MN and owned … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
v. Pettersen, d 238, 244 (Minn. 1984).
A16-2034 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Water in Motion, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Minnesota Plumbing Board Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Water in Motion, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Minnesota Plumbing Board Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Builders Association of the Twin Cities v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry 872 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Builders Association of the Twin Cities v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry 872 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 870 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 870 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
v. Pettersen, (quotation omitted).
Save Mille Lacs Sportsfishing, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 859 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Save Mille Lacs Sportsfishing, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 859 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
v. Pettersen, (limiting judicial review to those “three stated legal issues” at the pre-enforcement stage).
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 765 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 765 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
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
v. Pettersen, (citing Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483 , 75 S.Ct.
In Re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota 624 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2001
In Re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota 624 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2001
v. Pettersen, (according deference to agency interpretation of statute it is charged with administering).
Jacka v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 580 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1998
Jacka v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 580 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1998
Rocco Altobelli, Inc. v. State, Department of Commerce 524 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Rocco Altobelli, Inc. v. State, Department of Commerce 524 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Such actions “question[] the process by which the rule was made and the rule’s general validity before it is enforced against any particular party.”
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Minnesota State Board of Education 499 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Minnesota State Board of Education 499 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
v. Pettersen, see Minnesota Ass’n -68 (Minn.App.1986); L.K.
Boedingheimer v. Lake Country Transportation 485 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1992
Boedingheimer v. Lake Country Transportation 485 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1992
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 469 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 469 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Minnesota League of Credit Unions v. Minnesota Department of Commerce 467 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Minnesota League of Credit Unions v. Minnesota Department of Commerce 467 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Mammenga v. State Department of Human Services 442 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1989
Mammenga v. State Department of Human Services 442 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1989
(example of pre-enforcement challenge).
City of Morton v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 437 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
City of Morton v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 437 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
M.T. Properties, Inc. v. Alexander 433 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
M.T. Properties, Inc. v. Alexander 433 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Re the Welfare of K.S. 427 N.W.2d 653 Minn. 1988
In Re the Welfare of K.S. 427 N.W.2d 653 Minn. 1988
Contested Case of Christian Nursing Center v. Department of Human Services 419 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Contested Case of Christian Nursing Center v. Department of Human Services 419 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
the court upheld a legislative rule against a challenge that it exceeded the authority granted by the enabling act.
Kollmorgen v. State Board of Medical Examiners 416 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kollmorgen v. State Board of Medical Examiners 416 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
ANALYSIS Agency decisions are to be accorded substantial deference
Nachtsheim v. Wartnick 411 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nachtsheim v. Wartnick 411 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(citing Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U.S. 483 , 75 S.Ct.
Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. v. Goldberg 403 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. v. Goldberg 403 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Clay v. Clay 397 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Clay v. Clay 397 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
563 (1955) (supreme court held that to withstand challenge on due process basis, “it is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it”); (statute or rule being attacked on due process grounds “need only bear some rational relation to *577 accomplishment of a legitimate public purpose to be sustainable”).