State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a new issue raised in a reply brief “is not properly before this court and will not be considered”
• observing that, “in Essling v. Markman, 335 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. 1983)[,] the supreme court explained that freedom of contract has not been recognized as a fundamental right sufficient to invoke strict judicial scrutiny, and thus minimum judicial scrutiny is appropriate”
• affirming entry of default judgment when appellants repeatedly failed to cooperate with deposition or appear for court as ordered, despite being warned that default sanction would result
• affirming entry of default judgment when appellants repeatedly failed to cooperate with deposition or appear for court as ordered, despite being warned that default sanction would result
• legislative distinction between for-profit and nonprofit health clubs was constitutional where there was “no showing that the harms sought to be protected against by the Act ha[d] occurred in nonprofit organizations”
• legislative distinction between for-profit and nonprofit health clubs was constitutional where there was \no showing that the harms sought to be protected against by the Act ha[d] occurred in nonprofit organizations\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).