Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Minnesota opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Knochgreen2 sentences2016This court held that “[i]n a prosecution for possession of a controlled substance, the state may . . . establish 7 probable cause based on evidence of a positive field test of a substance alleged to be a controlled substance, without evidence of a confirmatory test of the substance.” Id. at 180. 2015In State v. Knoch, 781 N.W.2d 170, 179 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010), this court held that the state may establish probable cause to support the prosecution for possession of a controlled substance based on a field test and without evidence of a confirmatory test. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rudgreen2 sentences2010See State v. Rud, 359 N.W.2d 573, 579 (Minn.1984) ("Nothing we say today prevents a defendant from taking the stand at the omnibus hearing and denying his guilt or from otherwise producing witnesses whose testimony, if believed, would exonerate him."). 2010See State v. Rud, 359 N.W.2d 573, 579 (Minn.1984) (“Nothing we say today prevents a defendant from taking the stand at the omnibus hearing and denying his guilt or from otherwise producing witnesses whose testimony, if believed, would exonerate him.”). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014In Sipe , an employee who was discharged based on a positive drug-test result brought suit against his joint employers three years after -being discharged, alleging that the employers violated Minn. Stat. § 181.953 , subd. 10. 834 N.W.2d at 685 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.