35 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1903–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Welfare of the Children of D.F.green1 sentence2024See D.F., 752 N.W.2d at 97 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kroschgreen1 sentence2015State v. Krosch, 642 N.W.2d 713, 719 (Minn. 2002) (concluding that arguments raised in pro se supplemental brief would not be considered because the “brief contain[ed] no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations”); State v. Wembley, 712 N.W.2d 783, 795 (Minn. App. 2006) (stating that appellant’s allegation 7 of error by the district court based on “mere assertion” and not supported by legal argument or authority is waived unless the prejudicial error is obvious upon mere inspection), aff’d, 728 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Valtierragreen2 sentences2015Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358, 364 ; State v. Valtierra, 718 N.W.2d 425, 433 (Minn.2006). 2015Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358, 364 ; State v. Valtierra, 718 N.W.2d 425, 433 (Minn. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wembleygreen1 sentence2015State v. Krosch, 642 N.W.2d 713, 719 (Minn. 2002) (concluding that arguments raised in pro se supplemental brief would not be considered because the “brief contain[ed] no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations”); State v. Wembley, 712 N.W.2d 783, 795 (Minn. App. 2006) (stating that appellant’s allegation 7 of error by the district court based on “mere assertion” and not supported by legal argument or authority is waived unless the prejudicial error is obvious upon mere inspection), aff’d, 728 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Horodenski v. Lyndale Green Townhome Ass'ngreen1 sentence2014An appellant must demonstrate that the district court erred, Horodenski v. Lyndale Green Townhome Ass’n, Inc., 804 N.W.2d 366, 372 (Minn. App. 2011), and arguments that amount to mere assertions are waived unless a prejudicial error is readily apparent, State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 770, 772 (Minn. App. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.green1 sentence2014An appellant must demonstrate that the district court erred, Horodenski v. Lyndale Green Townhome Ass’n, Inc., 804 N.W.2d 366, 372 (Minn. App. 2011), and arguments that amount to mere assertions are waived unless a prejudicial error is readily apparent, State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 770, 772 (Minn. App. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Meemkengreen1 sentence2013“A prejudicial error has been defined as an error which affected the final result of the case and was prejudicial to a substantial right of the party assigning it.” State v. Meemken, 597 N.W.2d 582, 585 (Minn.App.1999) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Balder v. Haleygreen1 sentence2010Balder v. Haley, 399 N.W.2d 77, 80 (Minn.1987). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schifskygreen2 sentences1999“A prejudicial error has been defined as an error which affected the final result of the case and was prejudicial to a substantial right of the party assigning it.” State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533, 544 , 69 N.W.2d 89, 96 (Minn.1955) (citation omitted). 1999“A prejudicial error has been defined as an error which affected the final result of the case and was prejudicial to a substantial right of the party assigning it.” State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533, 544 , 69 N.W.2d 89, 96 (Minn.1955) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Caldwell v. Stategreen1 sentence1999“Rulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Caldwell v. State, 347 N.W.2d, 824, 826 (Minn.App.1984) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kennedygreen1 sentence1998State v. Kennedy, 572 N.W.2d 58, 63-64 (Minn.App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen2 sentences1987See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). 4. 1987See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). 4. | 1 | 1 |
Rauk v. Voldgreen2 sentences1986See Rauk v. Void, 268 Minn. 56, 63 , 127 N.W.2d 687, 692 (1964). 1986See Rauk v. Void, 268 Minn. 56, 63 , 127 N.W.2d 687, 692 (1964). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scottgreen1 sentence1983See State v. Beier, 263 N.W.2d 622 (Minn.1978). (b) There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the trial court was biased against him. (c) Our decision in State v. Scott, 323 N.W.2d 790 (Minn.1982), controls defendant’s contention that the trial court prejudicially erred in shackling him. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Beiergreen1 sentence1983See State v. Beier, 263 N.W.2d 622 (Minn.1978). (b) There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the trial court was biased against him. (c) Our decision in State v. Scott, 323 N.W.2d 790 (Minn.1982), controls defendant’s contention that the trial court prejudicially erred in shackling him. | 1 | 1 |
| Connolly v. Nicollet Hotelgreen | 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. Griller
green
2 sentences2015But perhaps most importantly, our duty is to faithfully apply the law, and a party’s failure to cite a case does not relieve us of that obligation. 3 Prejudicial error is present when “there is a reasonable likelihood that the giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” Id. (quotation omitted). 2015Prejudicial error is present when “there is a reasonable likelihood that the giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” Id. (quotation omitted). | 3 | 2010–2015 |
State v. Koppi
green
2 sentences2015Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358, 364 ; State v. Valtierra, 718 N.W.2d 425, 433 (Minn.2006). 2015Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358, 364 ; State v. Valtierra, 718 N.W.2d 425, 433 (Minn. 2006). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Wembley
green
1 sentence2015State v. Krosch, 642 N.W.2d 713, 719 (Minn. 2002) (concluding that arguments raised in pro se supplemental brief would not be considered because the “brief contain[ed] no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations”); State v. Wembley, 712 N.W.2d 783, 795 (Minn. App. 2006) (stating that appellant’s allegation 7 of error by the district court based on “mere assertion” and not supported by legal argument or authority is waived unless the prejudicial error is obvious upon mere inspection), aff’d, 728 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 2007). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.
green
2 sentences2012The court of appeals concluded that BNSF was entitled to a new trial under the plain-error doctrine because the instruction to the jury using the wrong standard of care was plainly erroneous and it was “a prejudicial error that doubtless affected the outcome of the case.” Frazier, 788 N.W.2d. at 781 . 2012In its view, the court was “compelled to conclude that, to ensure fairness and the integrity of this judicial proceeding, BNSF is entitled to a new liability trial.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Spaulding
green
1 sentence1998Id. at 878 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Bartosch v. Lewison
green
1 sentence1997Id. at 533 . [2] I also agree with the court's conclusion that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it instructed the jury on the purpose for admitting the evidence of collateral source payments. [3] 548.36. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Olson
green
1 sentence1992This is another criminal appeal — see State v. Olson, 482 N.W.2d 212 (Minn.1992), filed herewith — in which the issue is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury on one of the statutory inferences recognized by the legislature in 1989 for application in drug prosecutions. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Cash
green
1 sentence1987This court held that prejudicial error had occurred, because “[i]t was incumbent on the State, as the party offering the exhibit, to insure that the exhibit offered into evidence did not contain the tainted phrases the court had ordered stricken.” Id. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Hauwiller v. State
green
1 sentence1985Self defense is not part of the law of this case”. ■ This was not prejudicial error because a distinction exists between such comments by the trial court, Hauwiller, 295 N.W.2d at 644 , and by the prosecutor. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Spann
green
1 sentence1983State v. Spann, 287 N.W.2d 406 (Minn.1979). 3. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Schluter
green
1 sentence1982Defendant’s contention that the trial court committed prejudicial error in failing to give an accident instruction is answered by our decision in State v. Schluter, 281 N.W.2d 174 (Minn.1979). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
White v. State
green
2 sentences1980Petitioner has failed to prove ineffective assistance, see White v. State, 309 Minn. 476 , 248 N.W.2d 281 (1976), and has failed to demonstrate that the trial court either erred in denying a continuance or that the error was prejudicial. 1980Petitioner has failed to prove ineffective assistance, see White v. State, 309 Minn. 476 , 248 N.W.2d 281 (1976), and has failed to demonstrate that the trial court either erred in denying a continuance or that the error was prejudicial. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Schwartz
green
2 sentences1979The cases cited by the parties—see, State v. Biehoffer, 269 Minn. 35 , 129 N.W.2d 915 (1964); State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , 122 N.W.2d 769 (1963)—make it clear that *188 it was inappropriate for the patrolman to sit at the counsel table during trial. 1979The cases cited by the parties—see, State v. Biehoffer, 269 Minn. 35 , 129 N.W.2d 915 (1964); State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , 122 N.W.2d 769 (1963)—make it clear that *188 it was inappropriate for the patrolman to sit at the counsel table during trial. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Biehoffer
green
1 sentence1979The cases cited by the parties—see, State v. Biehoffer, 269 Minn. 35 , 129 N.W.2d 915 (1964); State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , 122 N.W.2d 769 (1963)—make it clear that *188 it was inappropriate for the patrolman to sit at the counsel table during trial. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Andrews
green
2 sentences1974We believe that this case is indistinguishable on its facts from the recent case of State v. Andrews, 297 Minn. 260 , 212 N. W. 2d 863 (1973), in which we held that in a prosecution under § 169.121 the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting such evidence. 1974We believe that this case is indistinguishable on its facts from the recent case of State v. Andrews, 297 Minn. 260 , 212 N. W. 2d 863 (1973), in which we held that in a prosecution under § 169.121 the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting such evidence. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Hiedeman v. Hiedeman green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Hardy v. Anderson green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| State v. McCarthy green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| State v. Billstrom green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Trickel v. Calvin green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| State v. Britton green | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| Rian v. Hegnauer green | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| Bowers v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. neutral | 1 | 1921–1921 |
| Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Phipps neutral | 1 | 1909–1909 |
| People v. Neumann green | 1 | 1903–1903 |
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.
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.