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 1916–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ihlegreen1 sentence2017The first element of the plain-error test “requires that we determine whether the instructions were in error.” State v. Ihle, 640 N.W.2d 910, 916 (Minn. 2002). | 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. Fraga
green
1 sentence2026Id. (determining that errors at trial were not egregious on the basis that instances of misconduct were “brief[]” and “accompanied by a limiting instruction”). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Griller
green
1 sentence2002The first prong of Griller ⅛ plain error test requires that we determine whether the instructions were in error. 583 N.W.2d at 740 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
TePoel v. Larson
green
2 sentences1971TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 , 37 Minn. L. 1971TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 , 37 Minn. L. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Moratzky v. Wirth
green
2 sentences1916And when the court said to the jury that they were not to accept the opinions of such witnesses, based upon an assumed state of facts, and not upon a direct knowledge of the facts, “unless it comports and agrees with your common sense and is consistent with the facts proven in the case, as such facts are determined by you from a fair preponderance of all of the evidence in the case,” the court went no further in point of substance than did the charge of the court in Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , 76 N. W. 1032 , where the instructions were held not error. 1916And when the court said to the jury that they were not to accept the opinions of such witnesses, based upon an assumed state of facts, and not upon a direct knowledge of the facts, “unless it comports and agrees with your common sense and is consistent with the facts proven in the case, as such facts are determined by you from a fair preponderance of all of the evidence in the case,” the court went no further in point of substance than did the charge of the court in Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , 76 N. W. 1032 , where the instructions were held not error. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.