30 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wolf v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATIONgreen2 sentences2016Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575, 586 (Minn. 2010). 6 Kidd argues that her postconviction petition has merit based on newly discovered evidence, a Brady violation, a due-process violation, manifest injustice, and ineffective assistance of counsel. 2016Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575, 586 (Minn. 2010). 6 jurisdictional defects arising prior to the entry of the plea.” State v. Ford, 397 N.W.2d 875, 878 (Minn. 1986) (citing State v. Lothenbach, 296 N.W.2d 854, 857 (Minn. 1980)). | 10 | 10 |
In re Disciplinary Action Against Isaacsongreen2 sentences2024When determining the appropriate amount of restitution, the district court shall consider only: “(1) the amount of economic loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense; and (2) the income, resources, and obligations of the defendant.” 6 Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a)(1)–(2); see also State v. Riggs, 865 N.W.2d 679, 681 (Minn. 2015) (finding that Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1, is an exclusive list of factors). 2024In State v. Riggs, we concluded that “the plain language of section 611A.045, subdivision 1, provides an exclusive list of factors for determining the amount of restitution to award.” 865 N.W.2d at 685 . | 3 | 4 |
State v. Fordgreen2 sentences2016Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575, 586 (Minn. 2010). 6 jurisdictional defects arising prior to the entry of the plea.” State v. Ford, 397 N.W.2d 875, 878 (Minn. 1986) (citing State v. Lothenbach, 296 N.W.2d 854, 857 (Minn. 1980)). 2016Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575, 586 (Minn. 2010). 5 jurisdictional defects arising prior to the entry of the plea.” State v. Ford, 397 N.W.2d 875, 878 (Minn. 1986) (citing State v. Lothenbach, 296 N.W.2d 854, 857 (Minn. 1980)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Lothenbachgreen2 sentences2016Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575, 586 (Minn. 2010). 6 jurisdictional defects arising prior to the entry of the plea.” State v. Ford, 397 N.W.2d 875, 878 (Minn. 1986) (citing State v. Lothenbach, 296 N.W.2d 854, 857 (Minn. 1980)). 2016Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575, 586 (Minn. 2010). 5 jurisdictional defects arising prior to the entry of the plea.” State v. Ford, 397 N.W.2d 875, 878 (Minn. 1986) (citing State v. Lothenbach, 296 N.W.2d 854, 857 (Minn. 1980)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Palubickigreen1 sentence2024And “[t]he primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” State v. Palubicki, 727 N.W.2d 662, 666 (Minn. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dendygreen2 sentences2023See also Riggs, 865 N.W.2d at 685 (recognizing that the legislature expressly included certain factors in the reparations context and omitted them in the restitution context, and relying in part on that difference to conclude that section 611A.045, subdivision 1, provides an exclusive list of factors for the district court’s determination of the amount of restitution); see also State v. Dendy, 520 N.W.2d 411, 413 (Minn. App. 1994) (stating that the plain text of section 611A.52 limiting its application to the Crime Victims Reparations Act portion of chapter 611A suggests the legislature intent 2023See also Riggs, 865 N.W.2d at 685 (recognizing that the legislature expressly included certain factors in the reparations context and omitted them in the restitution context, and relying in part on that difference to conclude that section 611A.045, subdivision 1, provides an exclusive list of factors for the district court’s determination of the amount of restitution); see also State v. Dendy, 520 N.W.2d 411, 413 (Minn. App. 1994) (stating that the plain text of section 611A.52 limiting its application to the Crime Victims Reparations Act portion of chapter 611A suggests the legislature intent | 1 | 1 |
Irwin v. Surdyk's Liquorgreen1 sentence2014Compare Minn. Stat. § 176.081 , subd. 5(d) (1982), and Minn. Stat. § 176.081 , subd. 5(d) (1980), with Irwin, 599 N.W.2d at 142 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Olsongreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., State v. Olson, 482 N.W.2d 212, 216 (Minn.1992). 2007See, e.g., State v. Olson, 482 N.W.2d 212, 216 (Minn. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coxgreen2 sentences2004We have said that “[t]he general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart durationally is whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” State v. Cox, 343 N.W.2d 641, 643 (Minn.1984). 2004We have said that "[t]he general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart durationally is whether the defendant's conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question." State v. Cox, 343 N.W.2d 641, 643 (Minn.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Hoffmann v. Hoffmanngreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., J.D.P v. P.J.H., 399 A.2d 207, 211 (Del.1979) (holding that, in certain situations, retained earnings of a corporation controlled by one spouse may be considered in the calculation of the couple's marital property, and providing a list of factors to consider in making that determination: "consideration of the values which are at stake, whether the increase in retained earnings resulted from a natural enhancement over which the controlling spouse had little or no control, whether such increase resulted from ordinary and necessary business reasons, whether such increase resulted from | 1 | 1 |
Swope v. Swopegreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., J.D.P v. P.J.H., 399 A.2d 207, 211 (Del.1979) (holding that, in certain situations, retained earnings of a corporation controlled by one spouse may be considered in the calculation of the couple's marital property, and providing a list of factors to consider in making that determination: "consideration of the values which are at stake, whether the increase in retained earnings resulted from a natural enhancement over which the controlling spouse had little or no control, whether such increase resulted from ordinary and necessary business reasons, whether such increase resulted from 2003See, e.g., J.D.P v. P.J.H., 399 A.2d 207, 211 (Del.1979) (holding that, in certain situations, retained earnings of a corporation controlled by one spouse may be considered in the calculation of the couple's marital property, and providing a list of factors to consider in making that determination: "consideration of the values which are at stake, whether the increase in retained earnings resulted from a natural enhancement over which the controlling spouse had little or no control, whether such increase resulted from ordinary and necessary business reasons, whether such increase resulted from | 1 | 1 |
Jdp v. Fjhgreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., J.D.P v. P.J.H., 399 A.2d 207, 211 (Del.1979) (holding that, in certain situations, retained earnings of a corporation controlled by one spouse may be considered in the calculation of the couple's marital property, and providing a list of factors to consider in making that determination: "consideration of the values which are at stake, whether the increase in retained earnings resulted from a natural enhancement over which the controlling spouse had little or no control, whether such increase resulted from ordinary and necessary business reasons, whether such increase resulted from | 1 | 1 |
In Re Paternity of BJHgreen1 sentence1998See In re Paternity of B.J.H., 573 N.W.2d 99, 102 (Minn.App.1998) (distinguishing the use of the factors in custody settings from their use in the paternity setting and concluding that the list of factors in section 518.17 is not exhaustive in either setting). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Linehangreen2 sentences1996See Linehan I, 518 N.W.2d at 613-15 (concentrating on expert testimony regarding evidence on deficiencies in behavioral control, but directing lower courts to examine a list of factors in making predictions on dangerousness). 1996See Linehan I, 518 N.W.2d at 613-15 (concentrating on expert testimony regarding evidence on deficiencies in behavioral control, but directing lower courts to examine a list of factors in making predictions on dangerousness). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lorentzengreen2 sentences1993See People v. Lorentzen, 387 Mich. 167 , 194 N.W.2d 827 (1972); People v. Anderson, 6 Cal.3d 628 , 100 Cal.Rptr. 152 , 493 P.2d 880 (1972). 5 . 1993See People v. Lorentzen, 387 Mich. 167 , 194 N.W.2d 827 (1972); People v. Anderson, 6 Cal.3d 628 , 100 Cal.Rptr. 152 , 493 P.2d 880 (1972). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Charles Travis and Jean Travis v. Harris Corp., Harris-Intertype Corporation, Sheridan Division and Bruno MacHinery Corporationgreen1 sentence1989Travis v. Harris Corp., 565 F.2d 443, 449 (7th Cir.1977). | 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. Kenard
green
2 sentences2018Kenard , 606 N.W.2d at 443 . 2017Kenard, 606 N.W.2d at 443 . | 3 | 2006–2018 |
Paradise v. City of Minneapolis
green
1 sentence2018Id. , cmt. 2.D.301. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota
green
1 sentence2016Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575, 586 (Minn. 2010). 8 This court in Roberts determined that the interests-of-justice exception had not been met under nearly identical circumstances and noted that the appellant had not made a showing of fundamental unfairness. 856 N.W.2d at 293 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Spain
green
2 sentences2004Despite the fact that the list of factors is nonexclusive, “[t]he purposes of the sentencing guidelines will not be served if the trial courts generally fail to apply the presumptive sentences found in the guidelines.” Spain, 590 N.W.2d at 88 . 2004Despite the fact that the list of factors is nonexclusive, "[t]he purposes of the sentencing guidelines will not be served if the trial courts generally fail to apply the presumptive sentences found in the guidelines." Spain, 590 N.W.2d at 88 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Idaho v. Wright
green
2 sentences2001The Supreme Court has declined to provide a specific list of factors to consider when evaluating the totality of the circumstances, but the Court has held that the key inquiry is whether the statement is so reliable that cross-examination would have been of only "marginal utility." Id. at 820-22 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 . 2001The Supreme Court has declined to provide a specific list of factors to consider when evaluating the totality of the circumstances, but the Court has held that the key inquiry is whether the statement is so reliable that cross-examination would have been of only "marginal utility." Id. at 820-22 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Stone
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Anderson
red
2 sentences1993See People v. Lorentzen, 387 Mich. 167 , 194 N.W.2d 827 (1972); People v. Anderson, 6 Cal.3d 628 , 100 Cal.Rptr. 152 , 493 P.2d 880 (1972). 5 . 1993See People v. Lorentzen, 387 Mich. 167 , 194 N.W.2d 827 (1972); People v. Anderson, 6 Cal.3d 628 , 100 Cal.Rptr. 152 , 493 P.2d 880 (1972). 5 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Frankenhauser v. Rizzo
green
2 sentences1987The court in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D.Pa. 1973) even attempted to compile a list of factors to be weighed in the balancing process: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2) the impact upon persons who have given information of having their identities disclosed; (3) the degree to which governmental *409 self-evaluation and consequent program improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is factual data or evaluative summary; (5) whether the party se 1987Id. at 344 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Highway & City Freight Drivers, Dockmen and Helpers, Local Union No. 600, a Voluntary Unincorporated Labor Organization v. Gordon Transports, Inc.
green
2 sentences1978In the absence of unusual circumstances an inmate does not have a constitutional right to call witnesses in his behalf. (4) A record of the proceedings which is capable of being reduced to writing must be maintained. (5) Within a reasonable time following the hearing, each inmate to whom parole was denied must be given a full and fair explanation, in writing, of the essential facts relied upon and the reasons for denial of parole." 576 F.2d 1285 . 1978In the absence of unusual circumstances an inmate does not have a constitutional right to call witnesses in his behalf. (4) A record of the proceedings which is capable of being reduced to writing must be maintained. (5) Within a reasonable time following the hearing, each inmate to whom parole was denied must be given a full and fair explanation, in writing, of the essential facts relied upon and the reasons for denial of parole.” 576 F.2d 1285 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.