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 1932–2017 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. McDanielgreen1 sentence2017Though the prosecutor’s statement constituted error, “corrective instructions by the [district] court can cure prosecutorial error.” State v. McDaniel, 777 N.W.2d 739, 750 (Minn. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Hudson v. Michigangreen2 sentences2007See Hudson v. Michigan, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2169 , 2165, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006). 7 We reject the suggestion that the rule announced in Hudson is controlling with respect to the nighttime search violation that occurred in this case. 2007See Hudson v. Michigan, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 2165 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006). [7] We reject the suggestion that the rule announced in Hudson is controlling with respect to the nighttime search violation that occurred in this case. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schoonover v. Sparrow
green
2 sentences1974Peter Land Co. 38 Minn. 397 , 37 N. W. 949 , there is a constitutional right to review in the supreme court notwithstanding the failure of the statute to provide for an appeal or deny one, the evident reference being to certiorari as offering the method of review. 1974Peter Land Co., 38 Minn. 397 , 37 N.W. 949 , there is a constitutional right to review in the supreme court notwithstanding the failure of the statute to provide for an appeal or deny one, the evident reference being to certiorari as offering the method of review. | 3 | 1932–1974 |
County of Brown v. Winona & St. Peter Land Co.
neutral
2 sentences1974Peter Land Co. 38 Minn. 397 , 37 N. W. 949 , there is a constitutional right to review in the supreme court notwithstanding the failure of the statute to provide for an appeal or deny one, the evident reference being to certiorari as offering the method of review. 1974Peter Land Co., 38 Minn. 397 , 37 N.W. 949 , there is a constitutional right to review in the supreme court notwithstanding the failure of the statute to provide for an appeal or deny one, the evident reference being to certiorari as offering the method of review. | 3 | 1932–1974 |
Brutscher v. Jacobson
green
2 sentences1974Co. v. Young, 150 Minn. 452 , 185 N. W. 934 , we referred to this provision with the suggestion that under the doctrine of County of Brown v. Winona & St. 1974Co. v. Young, 150 Minn. 452 , 185 N.W. 934 , we referred to this provision with the suggestion that under the doctrine of County of Brown v. Winona & St. | 3 | 1932–1974 |
Flour City Fuel & Transfer Co. v. Young
neutral
2 sentences1974Co. v. Young, 150 Minn. 452 , 185 N. W. 934 , we referred to this provision with the suggestion that under the doctrine of County of Brown v. Winona & St. 1974Co. v. Young, 150 Minn. 452 , 185 N.W. 934 , we referred to this provision with the suggestion that under the doctrine of County of Brown v. Winona & St. | 3 | 1932–1974 |
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.