Supreme Court noted defense (Minnesota) · Go Syfert
← Minnesota issues

Supreme Court noted defense in Minnesota

5 Minnesota opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2019 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. green
minn · 2009
1 sentence

2019In Bahr , the supreme court noted an exception, however, when "the denial of summary judgment is based on a legal conclusion on an issue that is not presented to the jury for determination." Id. at 918 n.9.

12019–2019
State v. Traxler green
minn · 1998
1 sentence

2017And the supreme court noted the factors to consider when making this determination: “the composition and form of the substance, the type of substance involved, and the circumstances in which the substance is found or seized.” Id.

12017–2017
State v. Jones green
minn · 2008
1 sentence

2009In Jones , the supreme court noted the exception in section 609.035, subdivision 6, commenting that it “reflect[s] legislative determinations concerning specific conduct that is eligible for increased punishment even when committed as part of the same behavioral incident.” Jones, 745 N.W.2d at 850 .

12009–2009
State v. Crawford green
· 1905
2 sentences

2001Id., at 100 , 104 N.W. at 824 .

2001Id., at 100 , 104 N.W. at 824 .

12001–2001
Marriage of Maranda v. Maranda green
minn · 1989
1 sentence

2001While Maranda discussed the motion in terms of rule 60.02, the supreme court noted that rule 60.02 was an improper vehicle for attempting to reopen dissolution judgments and stated that it would “treat the rule 60.02 motion as a motion to exercise the court’s inherent power to modify a final divorce decree based on an allegation of fraud on the court.” Maran-da, 449 N.W.2d at 164 .

12001–2001

Where else courts name it

CA 6 (1990–2021) IL 6 (1990–2022) LA 6 (1974–2013) MN 5 (2001–2019) OH 4 (1994–2006) WI 3 (1999–2012) MI 3 (1980–2024) OK 2 (2001–2003) PA 2 (2022–2023) TN 2 (1984–2005) CT 2 (1996–1997) TX 2 (2010–2010) AZ 2 (2008–2008) FL 2 (1996–2006) SC 2 (2005–2005) NJ 2 (2017–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check