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.
7 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carlton v. Stategreen2 sentences2015In Carlton v. State, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed whether the time limitations found in Minn. Stat. § 590.01 operate as a jurisdictional bar or whether the state’s failure to raise the timeliness argument constituted a waiver of the statute-of-limitations defense. 816 N.W.2d 590, 600-01 (Minn. 2012). 2012For the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590, 616-17 (Minn.2012), I would not have considered Sanchez’s claim that he was entitled to have the time limitation in Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c) (2010), equitably tolled while he was in Mexico. | 3 | 3 |
Sanchez v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Having rejected in Sanchez, 816 N.W.2d at 558-60 , the argument that a subjective standard applies under Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c), we are not persuaded. 2013Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550, 558-60 (Minn. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See also Johnson v. State, 801 N.W.2d 173, 176-77 (Minn.2011) (applying the time limitations in section 590.01 to Johnson’s motion to correct or reduce his sentence on the basis that his guilty plea was invalid). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bartyllagreen1 sentence2012See Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d at 14 (noting that the party challenging a statute must demonstrate that the statute “is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota
green
1 sentence2024The district court denied Townsend’s motion, concluding that the law of the case doctrine bars Townsend’s motion because his appeals to apply jail credit to his life-sentence conviction have been repeatedly denied: 4 In Reynolds v. State, we held that the time limitation in Minn. Stat. § 590.01 , subd. 4 (2014), did not apply to Rule 27.03. 888 N.W.2d 125 , 133–34 (Minn. 2016). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.