Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp., 432 N.W.2d 448.

144 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due process guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”
Nathan Alexander Jefferson v. Drew Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Nathan Alexander Jefferson v. Drew Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Both clauses also prohibit “certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions, regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990) (quotation omitted); (stating the due- process protection provided under Minnesota’s Constitution is identical to that guaranteed under the United States Constitution).
Sunshine Childcare Center, LLC v. Ramsey County, Jodi Harpstead, ... 7 N.W.3d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Sunshine Childcare Center, LLC v. Ramsey County, Jodi Harpstead, ... 7 N.W.3d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
R.P. AIR, INC., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution provide that “government action may not deprive individuals of liberty or pr operty interests without due process.” Sammons, d at 457 (citing Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. , (stating that due -process guarantees are the same under both the state and federal constitutions) ); see also Grosjean v. Am.
Minn. 2020
We have recognized that “[t]he due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due process guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Minn. 2020
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. , (footnote omitted) (evaluating the constitutionality of section 541.051).
In the Matter of the Appeal by Amy Seelye of the Maltreatment Determination and the Amended Order of … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Zayna Shire, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In Re: The Matter of the Petition for Project No. 77, Clay County Ditch No. 51-Lateral No. 3, … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp.
A. L. G., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Gregg Schmaedeke, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5 The Minnesota Supreme Court defines an improvement to real prop erty as “[a] permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to m ake the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs.” (quotation omitted).
Vill. Lofts At St. Anthony Falls Ass'n v. Hous. Partners Iii-Lofts LLC 924 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Vill. Lofts At St. Anthony Falls Ass'n v. Hous. Partners Iii-Lofts LLC 924 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. , , 454 (Minn. 1988).
James Aeshliman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Aquila, d at 884 (natural-gas pipeline system); Olmanson v. LeSueur County , (golf-cart culvert); (crane with structures surrounding it); Bulau v. Hector Plumbing & Heating Co., -30 (Minn. 1987) (fireplace), superseded by statute , Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd.
Dwayne Eugene Jackson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due proces[s] guaranteed under the Const itution of the United States.” Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp.
Paul King, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A statute is presumed constitutional,” and “[a] party who challenges a Minnesota statute as unconstitutional bears the burden of estab lishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates some constitutional provision.” Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp.
State v. Holloway 916 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2018
State v. Holloway 916 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2018
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. , , 453 (Minn. 1988).
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. , , 454 (Minn. 1988) (recognizing that the statute protects architects, designers, and contractors); see Calder v. City of Crystal , , 843 (Minn. 1982) (recognizing that the statute protects manufacturers).
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
829 (Minn. 2011) (citing Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. , , 453 (Minn. 1988) ).
In the Matter of the Application of Kimberly Baker. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The due process protection provi ded under the Minnesota Constitu tion is identical to the due process guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”
Jerome Robert Beck, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
5 “The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is id entical to the due process guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”
, A17-0220, A17-0222 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Due Process Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions prohibit “certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions, regardless of t he fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125, 110 S. Ct. 975, 983 (1990) (quotation omitted); Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. , (stating that due-process protections under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions are identical).
A16-2034 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp.
Audrey Melody Ashford, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp .
Todd John Hendrickson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Todd John Hendrickson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
XIV, § 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; d 448, 453 (Minn. 1988) (stating that due-process protection is “identical” under both constitutions).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
XIV, § 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; (noting that the protections of due process provided under the Minnesota Constitution are “identical” to those guaranteed under the United States Constitution ()).
George Marita Obara, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2015
George Marita Obara, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due process guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”
State of Minnesota v. David Lamar Everett, and David Lamar Everett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Lamar Everett, and David Lamar Everett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sartori v. 5 Harnischfeger Corp.
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ivan Ray Vaughan v. Wade Setter, Superintendant, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
V, XIV, § 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; (stating that the “due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due process guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States”).
Ivan Ray Vaughan v. Wade Setter, Superintendant, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Substantive due process The Due Process Clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions contain “a substantive component that bars certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125, 110 S. Ct. 975, 983 (1990); (stating that due-process protection is “identical” under both constitutions).
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
see also U.S. Const, amend., XIV, § 1; Minn. Const, art. I, § 7.
Rosso v. Hallmark Homes of Minneapolis, Inc. 843 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rosso v. Hallmark Homes of Minneapolis, Inc. 843 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Turner v. Commissioner of Revenue 840 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 2013