St. Paul Companies, Inc. v. Hatch
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
YETKA, Justice.
Is a statute which provides for a trial de novo review by the district court of a decision by the Commissioner of Commerce under Minn.Stat. § 60D.12, subd. 1 (1988) (the Insurance Holding Company Systems Act) constitutional? If so, how should such a review be conducted and what is the scope of the trial court’s authority? Both the trial court and the court of appeals refused to undertake a review of the commissioner’s order under the aforesaid statute and held the statute unconstitutional on its face under article III, section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution.
We reverse both the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Reserve Mining Co. v. HerbstSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- State ex rel. Dybdal v. State Securities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Steenerson v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- State v. SuessSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Alleghany Corp. v. HaaseCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
- Fedziuk v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- New Creative Enterprises, Inc. v. Dick Hume & Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- Investment Co. Institute v. HatchCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
- Medical Society v. BakkeNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2006
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.