Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Women of the State v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
9 Under the Minnesota Constitution, “the right of privacy protects only fundamental rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allan Carbo, Jr. 6 N.W.3d 114 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allan Carbo, Jr. 6 N.W.3d 114 Minn. 2024
When interpreting the Minnesota Constitution, this court has an “obligation to independently safeguard the rights of our citizens.”
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But Minnesota courts do not reject a United States Supreme Court interpretation of identical or substantively similar language “merely because one prefers the opposite result.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
Yet when independently interpreting the Minnesota Constitution, we will not reject a United States Supreme Court interpretation of identical or substantially similar language “merely because one prefers the opposite result.”
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
In Re the Estate of Barg 722 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Estate of Barg 722 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See Women of State of Minn, (stating that Medicaid provides benefits for “medically needy”).
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 56 P.3d 28 Ariz. 2002
Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 29 P.3d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
We have characterized it as “a significant undertaking for any state court to hold that a state constitution offers broader protection than similar federal provisions, and it is certainly not sufficient ‘to reject a [U.S.] Supreme Court opinion on the comparable federal clause merely because one prefers the opposite result.’ ” Women of the State of Minn, (quoting Hans A. Linde, First Things First: Rediscovering the States’ Bills of Rights, 9 U.Balt.L.Rev.
Petition of Santoro 578 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Petition of Santoro 578 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(invalidating restriction, previously upheld by Supreme Court, on public funding of abortion).
In re the Risk Level Determination of C.M. 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Matter of Cm 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In re the Risk Level Determination of C.M. 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
1322 , 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969) (invalidating statute that penalized right to travel by denying welfare benefits to new state residents); (striking restriction on public funding of abortions).
Matter of Cm 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
1322 , 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969) (invalidating statute that penalized right to travel by denying welfare benefits to new state residents); (striking restriction on public funding of abortions).
State v. Wicklund 576 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Wicklund 576 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Berkow v. State 573 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Berkow v. State 573 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Diemer v. Carlson 550 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 1996