Cited by

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

93 citing documents.

Hewitt v. City of Montrose 488 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hewitt v. City of Montrose 488 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Backdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety 479 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Backdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety 479 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Grussing v. Kvam Implement Co. 478 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Grussing v. Kvam Implement Co. 478 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
715 , 727 n. 12, 66 L.Ed.2d 659 (1981)
State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
(applying rational-basis test to construe a statute alleged to be discriminatory on the basis of age).
Bergmann v. Lee Data Corp. 467 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bergmann v. Lee Data Corp. 467 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Evenson v. City of Saint Paul Board of Appeals 467 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Evenson v. City of Saint Paul Board of Appeals 467 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Id.; (laws are presumed valid and the challenging party has the burden to prove invalidity).
State of Ga. Ex Rel. Brooks v. Braswell 460 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State of Ga. Ex Rel. Brooks v. Braswell 460 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
RS v. State 459 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1990
R.S. v. State 459 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1990
RS v. State 459 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1990
Omdahl v. Hadler 459 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Omdahl v. Hadler 459 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
K.E. v. Hoffman 452 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
K.E. v. Hoffman 452 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Matter of Schmidt 443 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
Matter of Schmidt 443 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
Black v. NuAire, Inc. 426 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Black v. NuAire, Inc. 426 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Leonard v. Parrish 420 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Leonard v. Parrish 420 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Absent a fundamental right or suspect class, “minimal judicial scrutiny is appropriate.”
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
However, 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.
Kleeman v. Cadwell 414 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Johnson v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kleeman v. Cadwell 414 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(citing Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 464 , 101 S.Ct.
Johnson v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re Estate of Turner 391 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1986
In Re Estate of Turner 391 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1986
2562, 2566 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976); and that no person has a fundamental right to receive public assistance, Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485 , 90 S.Ct.
Petition of Inter-City Gas Corp. 389 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1986
Petition of Inter-City Gas Corp. 389 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1986
A statute which sets out the procedure for the regulation of utility rates affects neither a fundamental right nor a suspect classification and, hence, whether it satisfies due process requirements is tested by limited judicial review: the statute is valid if it is “rationally related to achievement of a legitimate governmental purpose.”
Metropolitan Rehabilitation Services, Inc. v. Westberg 386 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1986
Metropolitan Rehabilitation Services, Inc. v. Westberg 386 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1986
In re Estate of Turner 379 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In re Estate of Turner 379 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Essling v. Markman (citation omitted).
In Re the Welfare of A.K.K. 356 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Welfare of A.K.K. 356 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 1984