Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393.
- Basich v. Board of Pensions (ELCA) 540 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- Geraci v. Eckankar 526 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- Geraci v. Eckankar 526 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- Knudtson v. City of Coates 519 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1994
- State v. Weatherspoon 514 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- Rasmussen v. Glass 498 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-
Rasmussen v. Glass
498 N.W.2d 508
Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-97 (Minn.1990) (unnecessary to rely on federal law where state constitution provides independent and adequate basis upon which to decide free exercise issue).
- Minnesota Federation of Teachers v. Mammenga 500 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-
Minnesota Federation of Teachers v. Mammenga
500 N.W.2d 136
Minn. Ct. App. 1993
MFT and Peterson, however, mischaracterize the supreme court’s
- Investigation & Determination of an Appropriate Unit & Exclusive Representative Hill-Murray Federation of Teachers, St. Paul v. Hill-Murray … 487 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1992
- Investigation & Determination of an Appropriate Unit & Exclusive Representative Hill-Murray Federation of Teachers, St. Paul v. Hill-Murray … 487 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1992
- Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Mpls. 482 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
-
Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Mpls.
482 N.W.2d 806
Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Minn. Const. art. I, § 16
- State v. Davidson 481 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1992
-
State v. Davidson
481 N.W.2d 51
Minn. 1992
(six-member juries violate state constitution); (determination of fundamental rights not limited by federal Constitution); (Minnesota Constitution provides greater religious liberty than first amendment); (Minnesota equal protection analysis under art. I, § 2 is more demanding than federal).
- State v. Russell 477 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1991
- Matter of Welfare of TK 475 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-
Matter of Welfare of TK
475 N.W.2d 88
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
2 Because the challenge to constitutionality is brought under the Minnesota Constitution, not the United States Constitution, 3 we begin our analysis, as did the trial court, by examining the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. *91 Hershberger, (Hershberger II).
- Hill-Murray Federation of Teachers, St. Paul v. Hill-Murray High School, Maplewood 471 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- Hill-Murray Federation of Teachers, St. Paul v. Hill-Murray High School, Maplewood 471 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1991
-
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety
473 N.W.2d 828
Minn. 1991
we approved use of the terms "compelling state interest” and "least restrictive alternative," although they arose from federal doctrine, as embodying concepts that provided guidance as we examined our state constitution.
- State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-
State v. Davidson
471 N.W.2d 691
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(religious liberties); (double jeopardy clause); , 281 n. 14 (Minn.1981) (equal protection); O’ (rights of criminally accused).
- Black v. Snyder 471 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- Black v. Snyder 471 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1991