29 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 3 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. Dahlingreen2 sentences2023We review a challenge to jury instructions for abuse of discretion and “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.” State v. Dahlin, 695 N.W.2d 588 , 25 597 (Minn. 2005). 2018In considering a request for an instruction on a lesser-included offense, a district court must look at the evidence "in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction." State v. Dahlin , 695 N.W.2d 588 , 598 (Minn. 2005). | 4 | 16 |
State v. Rhodesgreen2 sentences2013See Sanchez-Diaz, 758 N.W.2d at 846 (“Any doubts as to whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the party requesting the hearing.” (quoting State v. Rhodes, 627 N.W.2d 74, 86 (Minn.2001) (quotation marks omitted))). 2010“Any doubts as to whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the party requesting the hearing.” State v. Rhodes, 627 N.W.2d 74, 86 (Minn.2001) (citing State ex rel. | 4 | 4 |
State Ex Rel. Roy v. Tahashgreen2 sentences2008Roy v. Tahash, 277 Minn. 238, 244 , 152 N.W.2d 301, 305 (1967)). 2008Roy v. Tahash, 277 Minn. 238, 244 , 152 N.W.2d 301, 305 (1967)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Boitnottgreen1 sentence2024In doing so, we “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Turnage v. State, 708 N.W.2d 535 , 545–46 (Minn. 2006); see also Boitnott, 443 N.W.2d at 533 n.2 (stating that “[i]n keeping with the presumption of innocence, trial courts should resolve all doubts as to the legitimacy of a self-defense claim in favor of the defendant”). 12 Neither party disputes that Baker presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that he had an actual and honest belief that he wa | 1 | 1 |
Sanchez-Diaz v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Sanchez-Diaz, 758 N.W.2d at 846 (“Any doubts as to whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the party requesting the hearing.” (quoting State v. Rhodes, 627 N.W.2d 74, 86 (Minn.2001) (quotation marks omitted))). | 1 | 1 |
Thielbar v. Juenkegreen2 sentences2012Judge’s Ass’n, Minnesota Practice-Jury Instruction Guides, Civil, CIVJIG 25.16 (5th ed.2006) (noting that the emergency rule only applies to those perils not caused by the party requesting the instruction); see also Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 134 , 189 N.W.2d 493, 497 (1971). 2012Judge’s Ass’n, Minnesota Practice-Jury Instruction Guides, Civil, CIVJIG 25.16 (5th ed.2006) (noting that the emergency rule only applies to those perils not caused by the party requesting the instruction); see also Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 134 , 189 N.W.2d 493, 497 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Penkatygreen1 sentence2008State v. Penkaty, 708 N.W.2d 185, 205 (Minn.2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Turnagegreen1 sentence2007State v. Turnage, 729 N.W.2d 593, 598 (Minn.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Warren v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., State v. Wilburn, 249 Kan. 678 , 822 P.2d 609, 612 (1991); People v. Henderson, 41 N.Y.2d 233 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 563 , 359 N.E.2d 1357 , 1360 (1976); State v. Davis, 6 Ohio St.3d 91 , 451 N.E.2d 772, 776 (1983); State v. Velarde, 734 P.2d 449, 451 (Utah 1986); State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d 448 , 6 P.3d 1150, 1154 (2000); Warren v. State, 835 P.2d 304, 330-31 (Wyo.1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fernandez-Medinagreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., State v. Wilburn, 249 Kan. 678 , 822 P.2d 609, 612 (1991); People v. Henderson, 41 N.Y.2d 233 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 563 , 359 N.E.2d 1357 , 1360 (1976); State v. Davis, 6 Ohio St.3d 91 , 451 N.E.2d 772, 776 (1983); State v. Velarde, 734 P.2d 449, 451 (Utah 1986); State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d 448 , 6 P.3d 1150, 1154 (2000); Warren v. State, 835 P.2d 304, 330-31 (Wyo.1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Velardegreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., State v. Wilburn, 249 Kan. 678 , 822 P.2d 609, 612 (1991); People v. Henderson, 41 N.Y.2d 233 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 563 , 359 N.E.2d 1357 , 1360 (1976); State v. Davis, 6 Ohio St.3d 91 , 451 N.E.2d 772, 776 (1983); State v. Velarde, 734 P.2d 449, 451 (Utah 1986); State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d 448 , 6 P.3d 1150, 1154 (2000); Warren v. State, 835 P.2d 304, 330-31 (Wyo.1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., State v. Wilburn, 249 Kan. 678 , 822 P.2d 609, 612 (1991); People v. Henderson, 41 N.Y.2d 233 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 563 , 359 N.E.2d 1357 , 1360 (1976); State v. Davis, 6 Ohio St.3d 91 , 451 N.E.2d 772, 776 (1983); State v. Velarde, 734 P.2d 449, 451 (Utah 1986); State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d 448 , 6 P.3d 1150, 1154 (2000); Warren v. State, 835 P.2d 304, 330-31 (Wyo.1992). 2005See, e.g., State v. Wilburn, 249 Kan. 678 , 822 P.2d 609, 612 (1991); People v. Henderson, 41 N.Y.2d 233 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 563 , 359 N.E.2d 1357 , 1360 (1976); State v. Davis, 6 Ohio St.3d 91 , 451 N.E.2d 772, 776 (1983); State v. Velarde, 734 P.2d 449, 451 (Utah 1986); State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d 448 , 6 P.3d 1150, 1154 (2000); Warren v. State, 835 P.2d 304, 330-31 (Wyo.1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilburngreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., State v. Wilburn, 249 Kan. 678 , 822 P.2d 609, 612 (1991); People v. Henderson, 41 N.Y.2d 233 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 563 , 359 N.E.2d 1357 , 1360 (1976); State v. Davis, 6 Ohio St.3d 91 , 451 N.E.2d 772, 776 (1983); State v. Velarde, 734 P.2d 449, 451 (Utah 1986); State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d 448 , 6 P.3d 1150, 1154 (2000); Warren v. State, 835 P.2d 304, 330-31 (Wyo.1992). 2005See, e.g., State v. Wilburn, 249 Kan. 678 , 822 P.2d 609, 612 (1991); People v. Henderson, 41 N.Y.2d 233 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 563 , 359 N.E.2d 1357 , 1360 (1976); State v. Davis, 6 Ohio St.3d 91 , 451 N.E.2d 772, 776 (1983); State v. Velarde, 734 P.2d 449, 451 (Utah 1986); State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d 448 , 6 P.3d 1150, 1154 (2000); Warren v. State, 835 P.2d 304, 330-31 (Wyo.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Turnage v. State
green
2 sentences2024In doing so, we “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Turnage v. State, 708 N.W.2d 535 , 545–46 (Minn. 2006); see also Boitnott, 443 N.W.2d at 533 n.2 (stating that “[i]n keeping with the presumption of innocence, trial courts should resolve all doubts as to the legitimacy of a self-defense claim in favor of the defendant”). 12 Neither party disputes that Baker presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that he had an actual and honest belief that he wa 2014Turnage v. State, 708 N.W.2d 535 , 545–46 (Minn. 2006). | 2 | 2014–2024 |
State v. Edwards
green
1 sentence2023“In evaluating whether a rational basis exists in the evidence for a jury instruction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.” Edwards, 717 N.W.2d at 410 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
King v. State
green
1 sentence2010Our precedent recognizes that “doubts as to whether to conduct an evi-dentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the party requesting the hearing.” King, 649 N.W.2d at 156 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Keeble v. United States
green
1 sentence2007The inquiry at trial and on appeal “is made by reviewing the evidence actually adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.” Id. (citing State v. Dahlin, 695 N.W.2d 588, 597 (Minn.2005)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ferguson v. State
green
2 sentences2007Ferguson, 645 N.W.2d at 446 . 2007Ferguson, 645 N.W.2d at 446 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Fernandez-Medina
green
1 sentence2005See, e.g., State v. Wilburn, 249 Kan. 678 , 822 P.2d 609, 612 (1991); People v. Henderson, 41 N.Y.2d 233 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 563 , 359 N.E.2d 1357 , 1360 (1976); State v. Davis, 6 Ohio St.3d 91 , 451 N.E.2d 772, 776 (1983); State v. Velarde, 734 P.2d 449, 451 (Utah 1986); State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d 448 , 6 P.3d 1150, 1154 (2000); Warren v. State, 835 P.2d 304, 330-31 (Wyo.1992). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Leinweber
green
2 sentences2005Dahlin, 695 N.W.2d at 595 ; Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 422 , 228 N.W.2d at 125-26 . *510 In Dahlin , we recently held that district court judges must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction when determining whether a rational basis exists in the evidence for acquitting of the greater charge and convicting of the lesser. 695 N.W.2d at 598 . 2005Dahlin, 695 N.W.2d at 595 ; Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 422 , 228 N.W.2d at 125-26 . *510 In Dahlin , we recently held that district court judges must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction when determining whether a rational basis exists in the evidence for acquitting of the greater charge and convicting of the lesser. 695 N.W.2d at 598 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.