Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Demers v. City of Minneapolis, 468 N.W.2d 71.

38 citing documents.

Robert E. Cattanach v. City of St. Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The MGDPA governs public access to information maintained by governmental agencies in Minnesota.”
Minn. 2022
Council, n.2 (Minn. 2016); (“At the heart of the [A]ct is the provision that all ‘government data’ shall be public unless otherwise classified by statute, by temporary classification under the MGDPA or by federal law.” (emphasis added)).
Andrew Cilek, et al., Minn. 2020
This holding conflicts with the central tenet of the Data Practices Act that “all ‘government data’ shall be public unless otherwise classified by statute[.]”
Kristina Greene, et al v. Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
KSTP-TV v. Metropolitan Council 884 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2016
KSTP-TV v. Metropolitan Council 884 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2016
We have described this provision as being “at the heart of the [A]ct.”
Kristina Jean Powers v. Superintendent James Freihammer, in his official capacity, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kristina Jean Powers v. Superintendent James Freihammer, in his official capacity, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The MGDPA seeks “to balance the rights of individuals (data subjects) to protect personal information from indiscriminate disclosure with the right of the public to know 4 what the government is doing.”
Robert Burks v. The Metropolitan Council Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert Burks v. The Metropolitan Council Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The purpose of the MGDPA is to balance the rights of individuals to protect personal information from indiscriminate disclosure with the right of the public to know what the government is doing.”
In the Matter of: KSTP-TV v. Metro Transit Below, Metropolitan Council 868 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of: KSTP-TV v. Metro Transit Below, Metropolitan Council 868 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
It seeks “to balance the rights of individuals (data subjects) to protect personal information from indiscriminate disclosure with the right of the public to know what the government is doing.”
S.F. v. Clay County, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
S.F. v. Clay County, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The purpose of the MGDPA is to balance the rights of individuals (data subjects) to protect personal information from indiscriminate disclosure with the right of the public to know what the government is doing.”
Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 821 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 821 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
to protect personal information from indiscriminate disclosure with the right of the public to know what the government is doing.”
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud 765 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud 765 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. County of Hennepin 723 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2006
EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. County of Hennepin 723 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2006
(applying a narrow interpretation of subdivision 6).
City of Duluth v. Duluth Police Local 690 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
City of Duluth v. Duluth Police Local 690 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding “[tjhere is a compelling need for public accountability, particularly with law enforcement agencies”).
WDSI, INC. v. County of Steele 672 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
WDSI, INC. v. County of Steele 672 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
to protect personal information from indiscriminate disclosure with the right of the public to know what the government is doing.”
Star Tribune v. City of St. Paul 660 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Star Tribune v. City of St. Paul 660 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The Minnesota Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the act is “to balance the rights of individuals (data subjects) to protect personal information from indiscriminate disclosure with the right of the public to know what the government is doing.”
Prairie Island Indian Community v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety 658 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Prairie Island Indian Community v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety 658 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 652 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2002
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 652 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2002
“[Pjersonnel data are data that identify the employee who is the subject of the data.”
In Re Quinn 517 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1994
In Re Quinn 517 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1994
We concluded, however, that subdivision 10's "threat" exception applies "only in cases where the person might suffer serious harm or retaliation."
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 512 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 512 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington 499 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington 499 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
the supreme court held that information identifying complainants in nonpending, noncurrent police department internal affairs complaint forms was public data.
Demers v. City of Minneapolis 486 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Demers v. City of Minneapolis 486 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1992