In re the Insurance Agent License of Casey

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In re the Insurance Agent License of Casey

543 N.W.2d 96, 1996 Minn. LEXIS 816, 1996 WL 68052

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 9, 1996

DocketNo. C8-95-283

StatusPublished

This text of 543 N.W.2d 96 (In re the Insurance Agent License of Casey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Insurance Agent License of Casey, 543 N.W.2d 96, 1996 Minn. LEXIS 816, 1996 WL 68052 (Mich. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of the Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce for further review of that portion of the court of appeals’ decision filed November 28, 1995 reversing the Commissioner’s imposition of a $500 civil penalty against Thomas Casey, Sr. for violation of Minn.R. 2795.0400 be, and the same is, granted for the purpose of reinstating that civil penalty. While reasonable minds might disagree about the appropriateness of the imposition of a sanction for what the court of appeals characterizes as a “technical violation,” the record does not support the conclusion that the Commissioner clearly abused his discretion. See In re Haugen, 278 N.W.2d 75 (Minn.1979).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alexander M. Keith ALEXANDER M. KEITH Chief Justice

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of the Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce for further review of that portion of the court of appeals’ decision filed November 28, 1995 reversing the Commissioner’s imposition of a $500 civil penalty against Thomas Casey, Sr. for violation of Minn.R. 2795.0400 be, and the same is, granted for the purpose of reinstating that civil penalty. While reasonable minds might disagree about the appropriateness of the imposition of a sanction for what the court of appeals characterizes as a “technical violation,” the record does not support the conclusion that the Commissioner clearly abused his discretion. See In re Haugen, 278 N.W.2d 75 (Minn.1979).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alexander M. Keith ALEXANDER M. KEITH Chief Justice

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

543 N.W.2d 96, 1996 Minn. LEXIS 816, 1996 WL 68052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-insurance-agent-license-of-casey-minn-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack