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 2 courts 1988–2016 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. Knafflagreen2 sentences2016See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976) (“[W]here direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.”). 2016See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976) (“[W]here direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hubergreen2 sentences2008“The amount of bail to be fixed in a particular case rests within the discretion of the trial court and its determination will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 478 , 148 N.W.2d 137, 140 (1967). 2008“The amount of bail to be fixed in a particular case rests within the discretion of the trial court and its determination will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 478 , 148 N.W.2d 137, 140 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
Glick v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2006Safety, 362 N.W.2d 15, 16 (Minn.App.1985). 2006Safety, 362 N.W.2d 15, 16 (Minn.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sawyer v. Smith
green
2 sentences2004The state contends that this rule would apply "to everyone, or at least to every defendant who has not taken a direct appeal.” This contention is incorrect, as this rule only *340 benefits a criminal defendant when a new constitutional rule is announced prior to the expiration of his direct appeal period. 3 .The two exceptions to Teague’s general rule that new rules of law do not apply* to convictions that have become final are (1) new rules that "place an entire category of primary conduct beyond the reach of the criminal law, or new rules that prohibit imposition of a certain type of punishm 2004The state contends that this rule would apply "to everyone, or at least to every defendant who has not taken a direct appeal.” This contention is incorrect, as this rule only *340 benefits a criminal defendant when a new constitutional rule is announced prior to the expiration of his direct appeal period. 3 .The two exceptions to Teague’s general rule that new rules of law do not apply* to convictions that have become final are (1) new rules that "place an entire category of primary conduct beyond the reach of the criminal law, or new rules that prohibit imposition of a certain type of punishm | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Bouwman
green
1 sentence1988Such a defense was specifically rejected by our supreme court in State v. Bouwman, 328 N.W.2d 703 (Minn.1982). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.