5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2017Nissalke v. State, 861 N.W.2d 88, 93-94 (Minn. 2015) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 3 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)). 2017Nissalke v. State, 861 N.W.2d 88, 93-94 (Minn. 2015) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 3 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Heaneygreen1 sentence2024And the supreme court chose the “most-significant-relationship” test in Castillo-Alvarez because, consistent with prior caselaw considering the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials, the Minnesota rule has “both a procedural and substantive purpose.” Id. at 539 ; see also State v. Heaney, 689 N.W.2d 168, 170 (Minn. 2004) (“A conflict of laws concerning the admissibility of evidence protected by the physician-patient relationship is resolved by applying the two- prong test set forth in Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 139 (1971).”). | 1 | 1 |
Nissalke v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Nissalke v. State, 861 N.W.2d 88, 93-94 (Minn. 2015) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 3 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Bobo v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See id.; Bobo, 820 N.W.2d at 516-517 (explaining that “[t]o receive an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a defendant is required to allege facts that . . . would satisfy the two- prong test announced in Strickland v. Washington,” while “[t]o receive an evidentiary hearing on a . . . postconviction claim of newly discovered evidence, a defendant is required to allege facts that . . . would satisfy the four-prong test set forth in Rainer v. State”). | 1 | 1 |
Gates v. Stategreen1 sentence1988The defendant must affirmatively prove that his counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 558, 561 (Minn.1987) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1267 , 104 S.Ct. 3562 , 82 L.Ed.2d 864 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Castillo-Alvarez
green
1 sentence2024And the supreme court chose the “most-significant-relationship” test in Castillo-Alvarez because, consistent with prior caselaw considering the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials, the Minnesota rule has “both a procedural and substantive purpose.” Id. at 539 ; see also State v. Heaney, 689 N.W.2d 168, 170 (Minn. 2004) (“A conflict of laws concerning the admissibility of evidence protected by the physician-patient relationship is resolved by applying the two- prong test set forth in Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 139 (1971).”). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Angus v. State
green
1 sentence2015Appellant carries the burden to demonstrate pretext through a two prong analysis: (1) “the proffered race-neutral reason is not the real reason for the strike” and (2) “the real reason was the race of the veniremember.” Angus, 695 N.W.2d at 117 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
green
1 sentence1988The defendant must affirmatively prove that his counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 558, 561 (Minn.1987) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1267 , 104 S.Ct. 3562 , 82 L.Ed.2d 864 (1984)). | 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.