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 1987–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Transport Leasing Corporation v. State
green
2 sentences2018Leasing Corp. v. State , 294 Minn. 134 , 199 N.W.2d 817 , 819 (1972) ). 2018Leasing Corp. v. State , 294 Minn. 134 , 199 N.W.2d 817 , 819 (1972) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Dereje v. State
green
1 sentence2018The problem with this analysis is that first-degree burglary is defined differently than second-degree burglary, and our precedent holds that " 'when different words are used in the same context, we assume that the words have different meanings' " State v. Nelson , 842 N.W.2d 433 , 439 (Minn. 2014) (quoting Dereje v. State , 837 N.W.2d 714 , 720 (Minn. 2013) ) (citing Transp. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Nelson
green
1 sentence2018The problem with this analysis is that first-degree burglary is defined differently than second-degree burglary, and our precedent holds that " 'when different words are used in the same context, we assume that the words have different meanings' " State v. Nelson , 842 N.W.2d 433 , 439 (Minn. 2014) (quoting Dereje v. State , 837 N.W.2d 714 , 720 (Minn. 2013) ) (citing Transp. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Hoben
green
1 sentence2007This violates the rule in Hoben that an ordinance cannot provide less procedural protection to the person charged than would be available if the person were *584 charged under the Act. 256 Minn. at 444 , 98 N.W.2d at 819 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Compagnie Internationale De Produits Alimentaires S. A. v. Miller
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 529, 45 5.Ct. 169 (“carriers were left free to determine how their boilers should be kept in proper condition for use without unnecessary danger”); id. at 530, 45 S.Ct. 169 (“[ijnventions are occurring frequently, and there are many devices to accomplish the same purpose”). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Bagley
green
2 sentences1992As the majority of the court of appeals put it, “the nondisclosed ‘evidence’ consists merely of the victim’s statement that she saw someone who looked like [defendant] and, thus, like her assailant,” evidence that the prosecutor “apparently could have viewed * * * as irrelevant and meaningless.” The problem with this analysis is that it is based on a line of federal cases — e.g., United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) — and ignores Minnesota cases. 1992As the majority of the court of appeals put it, “the nondisclosed ‘evidence’ consists merely of the victim’s statement that she saw someone who looked like [defendant] and, thus, like her assailant,” evidence that the prosecutor “apparently could have viewed * * * as irrelevant and meaningless.” The problem with this analysis is that it is based on a line of federal cases — e.g., United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) — and ignores Minnesota cases. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Arney v. Helbig
green
2 sentences1987Citing Miley v. Grabill, 392 N.W.2d 52 (Minn.App.1986), and Arney v. Helbig, 383 N.W.2d 4 (Minn.App.1986), the trial court stated “that those two cases mandate a refusal by this Court to grant the plaintiff the relief requested.” The problem with this analysis is that the trial court had already concluded that this was not a Schwartz hearing situation before Bianchi’s counsel did those things which the trial court determined violated Schwartz hearing procedures. 1987Citing Miley v. Grabill, 392 N.W.2d 52 (Minn.App.1986), and Arney v. Helbig, 383 N.W.2d 4 (Minn. App.1986), the trial court stated "that those two cases mandate a refusal by this Court to grant the plaintiff the relief requested." The problem with this analysis is that the trial court had already concluded that this was not a Schwartz hearing situation before Bianchi's counsel did those things which the trial court determined violated Schwartz hearing procedures. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Miley v. Grabill
green
2 sentences1987Citing Miley v. Grabill, 392 N.W.2d 52 (Minn.App.1986), and Arney v. Helbig, 383 N.W.2d 4 (Minn.App.1986), the trial court stated “that those two cases mandate a refusal by this Court to grant the plaintiff the relief requested.” The problem with this analysis is that the trial court had already concluded that this was not a Schwartz hearing situation before Bianchi’s counsel did those things which the trial court determined violated Schwartz hearing procedures. 1987Citing Miley v. Grabill, 392 N.W.2d 52 (Minn.App.1986), and Arney v. Helbig, 383 N.W.2d 4 (Minn. App.1986), the trial court stated "that those two cases mandate a refusal by this Court to grant the plaintiff the relief requested." The problem with this analysis is that the trial court had already concluded that this was not a Schwartz hearing situation before Bianchi's counsel did those things which the trial court determined violated Schwartz hearing procedures. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.