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 1993–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Skarhus v. Davanni's Inc.green2 sentences2026On this basis, 2 As much as Raygor contests on appeal the ULJ’s rejection of her assertion that there are “multiple discrepancies and inaccuracies” in Stewart’s hearing testimony, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s determination that “Raygor has not shown that Stewart likely gave false testimony or that any additional evidence would likely change the outcome of the decision.” Despite Raygor’s “claim[] that Stewart said that he was going to have to let her go for financial reasons,” Stewart’s testimony at the hearing, as summarized above, amounts to substantial evidence in 2026On this basis, 2 As much as Raygor contests on appeal the ULJ’s rejection of her assertion that there are “multiple discrepancies and inaccuracies” in Stewart’s hearing testimony, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s determination that “Raygor has not shown that Stewart likely gave false testimony or that any additional evidence would likely change the outcome of the decision.” Despite Raygor’s “claim[] that Stewart said that he was going to have to let her go for financial reasons,” Stewart’s testimony at the hearing, as summarized above, amounts to substantial evidence in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stewartgreen2 sentences1998See Stewart, 276 N.W.2d at 62 n. 6. 1998See Stewart, 276 N.W.2d at 62 n. 5. | 1 | 1 |
Lundgren v. Fultzgreen1 sentence1995In Lundgren v. Fultz, 354 N.W.2d 25, 27 (Minn.1984), the court stated that “[i]mplicit in the duty to control is the ability to control.” Here, the state continued to have a duty to control Stewart. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences1996Id. at 335-36 . 1996Id. at 335-36 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Florida v. Royer
green
2 sentences1993The standard articulated by Justice Stewart in Mendenhall was fully accepted by a majority of the Court in Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 , 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983), which we summarized in detail in State v. Lande, 350 N.W.2d 355 , 357 n. 1 (1984). 1993The standard articulated by Justice Stewart in Mendenhall was fully accepted by a majority of the Court in Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 , 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983), which we summarized in detail in State v. Lande, 350 N.W.2d 355 , 357 n. 1 (1984). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Lande
green
2 sentences1993The standard articulated by Justice Stewart in Mendenhall was fully accepted by a majority of the Court in Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 , 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983), which we summarized in detail in State v. Lande, 350 N.W.2d 355 , 357 n. 1 (1984). 1993The standard articulated by Justice Stewart in Mendenhall was fully accepted by a majority of the Court in Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 , 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983), which we summarized in detail in State v. Lande, 350 N.W.2d 355 , 357 n. 1 (1984). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.