Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Essling v. Markman, 335 N.W.2d 237.

93 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. M. A. and M. J. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. M. A. and M. J. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Mills, Inc., see also State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., (observing that, “[,] the supreme court explained that freedom of contract has not been recognized as a fundamental right sufficient to invoke strict judicial scrutiny, and thus minimum judicial scrutiny is appropriate”), rev. denied legislature .
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
(explaining that it is “a basic principle of constitutional law” that the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the legislature); see also Fed.
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
Meeker County, petitioner, Respondent, Victoria Lynn Moreno, n/k/a Victoria Lynn Baalson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[I]f the record indicates that the [statute] is rationally related to achievement of a legitimate governmental purpose, [its application] should be upheld.”
In re: Application for an Order for Inspection of David Berglund and Lake View Natural Dairy, 140 County … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re: Application for an Order for Inspection of David Berglund and Lake View Natural Dairy, 140 County … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Strict scrutiny is required when a fundamental right is limited or a classification is based upon a suspect class.”
State of Minnesota v. Babafemi Adewale Odukale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Babafemi Adewale Odukale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Antone William Guimont v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Antone William Guimont v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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
State of Minnesota v. Ronald James Chasingbear Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronald James Chasingbear Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that when no fundamental right is at issue, a law must be “a reasonable means to a permissive object”); (stating that when a fundamental right is limited, a law will be upheld “if it is necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest”).
State ex rel. Commissioner of Human Services v. Buchmann 830 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State ex rel. Commissioner of Human Services v. Buchmann 830 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“[I]f the record indicates that the [statute] is rationally related to achievement of a legitimate governmental purpose, [its application] should be upheld.”
State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Similarly, MIF-PA’s purpose is to “provid[e] for participation by Indian tribes in the placement of their children.” 1985 Minn. Laws ch. 111, title, at 306; (stating that courts may rely on the title of a statute as an indicator of legislative intent).
State v. Hartmann 700 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2005
Kolton v. County of Anoka 628 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Kolton v. County of Anoka 628 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(stating party challenging constitutionality of statute cannot prevail under rational basis test so long as the question is at least debatable).
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Friday 617 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Friday 617 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
240 n. 2 (Minn.1983) (title of statute may be considered as indicator of legislative intent).
Haas v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation 611 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Haas v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation 611 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
As Haas concedes and the statute’s caption reflects, this provision of the UCC deals with “Third Party Beneficiaries of Warranties Express or Implied.” Minn. Stat. § 336.2-318 ; , 240 n. 2 (Minn.1983) (statutory title may be considered when attempting to ascertain legislature’s intent).
Lukkason v. 1993 Chevrolet Extended Cab Pickup 590 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Lukkason v. 1993 Chevrolet Extended Cab Pickup 590 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Lundberg Ex Rel. Lundberg v. Jeep Corp. 582 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Lundberg Ex Rel. Lundberg v. Jeep Corp. 582 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Press v. City of Minneapolis 553 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Press v. City of Minneapolis 553 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In re the Welfare of W.L.H. 552 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In re the Welfare of W.L.H. 552 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
240 n. 2 (Minn.1983) (title of statute may be considered as indicator of legislative intent); (title of statute is not of decisive significance in determining scope of statute), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
Hyland v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 538 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hyland v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 538 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Spilde 536 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Spilde 536 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(court will not substitute its judgment for that of legislature).
State v. Hanson 532 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Hanson 532 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(court will not substitute its judgment for that of legislature).
State v. Stallman 519 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Stallman 519 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Skeen v. State 505 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1993
Skeen v. State 505 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1993