Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite King v. University of Minnesota, 387 N.W.2d 675.

26 citing documents.

Roger Reyes Victoria, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
of Minn. , rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
Amina N. Addow, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
of Minn. , rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of: Tracy Toulouse. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
of Minn. , (noting that “statutes designating the time for appeal .
Sujata Sangwan, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
of Minn. , review denied (Minn. Aug.
Cornelius Williams, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Amy L. Morris, Relator v. Trudeau Foods LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Amy L. Morris, Relator v. Trudeau Foods LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
of Minn., (“[S]tatutes designating the time for appeal from decisions of all levels of the Department should be strictly construed, regardless of mitigating circumstances.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Jonathan C. Barnett, Relator v. Soligent Distribution LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jonathan C. Barnett, Relator v. Soligent Distribution LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
of Minn., (“[S]tatutes designating the time for appeal from decisions of all levels of [DEED] should be strictly construed, regardless of mitigating circumstances.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Ge Yang, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ge Yang, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Diane Quick, Relator v. Polar Semiconductor, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Diane Quick, Relator v. Polar Semiconductor, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
of Minn., review denied (Minn. Aug.
Bradley G. Bremer, Relator v. Thomas Allen, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Bradley G. Bremer, Relator v. Thomas Allen, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
of Minn., (“[S]tatutes designating the time for appeal from decisions of all levels of [DEED] should be strictly construed, regardless of mitigating circumstances.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Rowe v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 704 N.W.2d 191 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Rowe v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 704 N.W.2d 191 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
of Minn., (stating that “the time for appeal from decisions of all levels of the [department [of employment and *196 economic development] should be strictly construed”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Waletich Corp. v. Commissioner of Employment & Economic Development 682 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Waletich Corp. v. Commissioner of Employment & Economic Development 682 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
of Minn., review denied (Minn. Aug.
Sorenson v. Life Style, Inc. 674 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Sorenson v. Life Style, Inc. 674 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
of Minn., review denied (Minn. Aug.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Great West Casualty Co. 623 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2001
Lolling v. Midwest Patrol 533 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lolling v. Midwest Patrol 533 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
677 n. 1 (Minn.App.1986) (deciding jurisdictional issue despite fact that it was raised for the first time in appellate brief), pet.
Johnson v. Metropolitan Medical Center 395 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. Metropolitan Medical Center 395 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1986

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by