Legal Opinion · Dissent

Coleman v. Ritchie

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 6, 2009No. A08-2169Published

1DissentPage, Justice

I join in the dissent of Justice PAUL H. ANDERSON.

DISSENT

PAGE, Justice (dissenting).

I join Justice Paul Anderson’s dissent. I write separately to briefly make four additional points and to emphasize three points made by Justice Anderson. The four additional points I want to make are:

1. The court misconstrues the meaning of Andersen.

While the court cites to In re Andersen, 264 Minn. 257, 261-62, 119 N.W.2d 1, 5 (1962), as part of the justification for its decision, Andersen, in fact, does not support that decision. Nor does it support the court’s narrow construction of Minn. Stat. § 204C.39.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Wesberry v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. State v. ClarkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
  3. State Ex Rel. South St. Paul v. HetheringtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
  4. Rolvaag v. DonovanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  5. Flakne v. EricksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API