Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Behl, 564 N.W.2d 560.
- State v. Mauer 726 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-
State v. Mauer
726 N.W.2d 810
Minn. Ct. App. 2007
We will declare a statute unconstitutional “only when absolutely necessary.” (quotation omitted).
- State v. Melde 725 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Melde
725 N.W.2d 99
Minn. 2006
We will declare a statute unconstitutional “only when absolutely necessary.”
- In Re the Welfare of J.C.P. 716 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- In Re the Welfare of J.C.P. 716 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Barnes
713 N.W.2d 325
Minn. 2006
We will hold a statute unconstitutional “only when absolutely necessary.”
- Unity Church of St. Paul v. State 694 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- Unity Church of St. Paul v. State 694 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Benniefield 678 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2004
-
State v. Benniefield
678 N.W.2d 42
Minn. 2004
We will hold a statute unconstitutional “only when absolutely necessary.”
- State v. Serena 673 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Serena 673 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- In re P.T. 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- In Re PT 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-
In re P.T.
657 N.W.2d 577
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The Equal Protection Clause does not require the state “to treat things that are different in fact or opinion as though they were the same in law.”
- In Re PT 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Collins 655 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Collins 655 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
- State v. Frazier 649 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2002
- State v. Frazier 649 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2002
- State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
- In Re the Welfare of B.J.M. 636 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- In Re the Welfare of B.J.M. 636 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- Nelson v. American Family Insurance Group 632 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-
Nelson v. American Family Insurance Group
632 N.W.2d 264
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(Keith, C.J., dissenting) (“statutes are to be given a sensible construction that avoids unreasonable, unjust, or absurd results” (citing Thoresen v. Schmahl, 222 Minn. 304, 311 , )).
- State v. Schwartz 628 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2001
- State v. Schwartz 628 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2001
- In Re the Welfare of V.D.M. 623 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-
In Re the Welfare of V.D.M.
623 N.W.2d 277
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
ANALYSIS Because a statute initially provided the basis for the district court’s jurisdiction over appellant, “the issue of the district court’s jurisdiction is a question of law that is fully reviewable by this court.” (citation omitted).
- Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura 610 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2000
-
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura
610 N.W.2d 293
Minn. 2000
Where the constitutionality of a statute is at issue our review is de novo, *299 566 (Minn.1997), and we proceed on the presumption that Minnesota statutes are constitutional and that our power to declare a statute unconstitutional should be exercised with extreme caution.
- Boutin v. LaFleur 591 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1999
-
Boutin v. LaFleur
591 N.W.2d 711
Minn. 1999
(citing Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. *717 186, 191-96 , 106 S.Ct.
- State Ex Rel. Morrow v. LaFleur 590 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1999
-
State Ex Rel. Morrow v. LaFleur
590 N.W.2d 787
Minn. 1999
For any other interest, “judicial scrutiny of the substance of state legislation under the due process clause is not exacting.” (citing Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 191-96 , 106 S.Ct.
- State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
- State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
- In Re the Welfare of K.A.S. 585 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- In Re the Welfare of K.A.S. 585 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- Northwest v. LaFleur 583 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- Northwest v. LaFleur 583 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
- State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
- State v. Behl 573 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
-
State v. Behl
573 N.W.2d 711
Minn. Ct. App. 1998
FACTS The facts of this case are set forth in Behl’s previous appeals, (Behl I) (Behl II).