Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Snyder v. City of Minneapolis, 441 N.W.2d 781.

113 citing documents.

Lundberg Ex Rel. Lundberg v. Jeep Corp. 582 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
ANALYSIS Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional, and the power to declare a statute unconstitutional must be exercised “only when absolutely necessary and then only with great caution.”
Ai Viet Thi Nguyen v. Phu Chau Nguyen 565 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Ai Viet Thi Nguyen v. Phu Chau Nguyen 565 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Behl 564 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1997
State v. Behl 564 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1997
1401,1413 , 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977)
Rehn v. Fischley 557 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1997
Rehn v. Fischley 557 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1997
(holding that the statutory limit on damages stated in Minn.Stat.
Zank v. Larson 552 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1996
Zank v. Larson 552 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1996
Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington 552 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington 552 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
at 2289 (imposition of withdrawal liability rationally related to terms of employer’s participation in plan it joined and “that suffices for substantive due process scrutiny of this economic legislation”); (statute survives equal protection and due process challenges” if rationally related to legitimate government objective).
Killen v. Independent School District No. 706 547 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Killen v. Independent School District No. 706 547 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(discretionary immunity); (official immunity), affd in part, rev’d in part
Murphy v. Wood 545 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Murphy v. Wood 545 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State statutes will be declared unconstitutional “only when absolutely necessary and then only with great caution.”
Vrieze v. New Century Homes, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Vrieze v. New Century Homes, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Lloyd v. City of St. Paul 538 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lloyd v. City of St. Paul 538 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
McNamara v. McLean 531 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
McNamara v. McLean 531 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
“Whether the acts of [a county’s] employees are a discretionary function is a legal question.”
Waste Recovery Cooperative v. County of Hennepin 517 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1994
Waste Recovery Cooperative v. County of Hennepin 517 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1994
Snyder v. *332 City of Minneapolis
Doyle v. City of Roseville 507 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Doyle v. City of Roseville 507 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
“Whether the acts of city employees are discretionary functions is a legal question.”
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 504 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 504 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(whether acts are discretionary is a question of law).
McDonough v. City of Rosemount 503 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
McDonough v. City of Rosemount 503 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Snyder v. *497 City of Minneapolis
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Sota Foods, Inc. v. Larson-Peterson & Associates, Inc. 497 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Sota Foods, Inc. v. Larson-Peterson & Associates, Inc. 497 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Masonick v. J.P. Homes, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Masonick v. J.P. Homes, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
“Whether the acts of [a city’s] employees are a discretionary function is a legal question.”
Thies v. St. Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church of Litchfield 489 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Thies v. St. Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church of Litchfield 489 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
“An award of damages may not be based on speculation or conjecture.”
In Re the Welfare of D.L. 479 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In Re the Welfare of D.L. 479 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Investment Co. Institute v. Hatch 477 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Investment Co. Institute v. Hatch 477 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
However, we will declare state statutes unconstitutional “only when absolutely necessary and then only with great caution.” see St.
Rowe v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 472 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1991
Rowe v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 472 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1991
Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester 465 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1991
Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester 465 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1991
-93 (Minn.1989) (inability of plaintiff to prove damages led to denial of substantive due process claim), this court has specifically looked to the Eighth Circuit for guidance on the issue of whether a zoning action rises to the level of a violation of a substantive due process right.
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990