25 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1921–2025 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. Grillergreen2 sentences2008State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn.1998) (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 469-70 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (explaining that a court may exercise its discretion to correct the error only if the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings)). 2002See Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 740 (stating that before appellate court should engage in plain error analysis, it must first detect an error and that error must be plain). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Rameygreen2 sentences2024State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006). 2018See State v. Ramey , 721 N.W.2d 294 , 302 (Minn. 2006). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Crowsbreastgreen2 sentences2005If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellate court may correct the error only if the error "seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433, 437 (Minn.2001) (quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 ). 2005If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellate court may correct the error only if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433, 437 (Minn.2001) (quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 ). | 2 | 2 |
Smits v. E-Z Por Corp.green2 sentences1989In the absence of an objection, an error in the instruction may be assigned as ground for a new trial only if the error is one of "fundamental law or controlling principle." Smits v. E-Z Por Corp., 365 N.W.2d 352, 354 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (citations omitted). 1989In the absence of an objection, an error in the instruction may be assigned as ground for a new trial only if the error is one of “fundamental law or controlling principle.” Smits v. E-Z Por Corp., 365 N.W.2d 352, 354 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffingreen2 sentences2025State v. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d 257, 262 (Minn. 2016). 2025State v. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d 257, 262 (Minn. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared1 sentence2024See State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286, 291 (Minn. 1997); Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d at 314 ; see also Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967) (stating that “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Juarezgreen1 sentence2024See State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286, 291 (Minn. 1997); Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d at 314 ; see also Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967) (stating that “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mahkukgreen1 sentence2016See State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 805 (Minn. 2012) (explaining that “element of ‘intentionally aiding’ embodies two important and necessary 5 principles: (1) that the defendant ‘knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime,’ and (2) that the defendant ‘intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime’”) (quoting State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675, 682 (Minn. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Matthewsgreen1 sentence2016On the other hand, if all “three prongs are established, we will correct the error only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or the public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Matthews, 800 N.W.2d 629, 634 (Minn. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Miltongreen1 sentence2016See State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 805 (Minn. 2012) (explaining that “element of ‘intentionally aiding’ embodies two important and necessary 5 principles: (1) that the defendant ‘knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime,’ and (2) that the defendant ‘intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime’”) (quoting State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675, 682 (Minn. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
T.E.S. Construction, Inc. v. Chicilogreen1 sentence2013Constr., Inc. v. Chicilo, 784 N.W.2d 392, 398 (Minn.App.2010) (applying Minn. R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Malaskigreen1 sentence1989State v. Malaski, 330 N.W.2d 447, 451 (Minn.1983) (quoting in part Minn. R.Evid. 103(d)). | 1 | 1 |
Wadena v. Bushgreen2 sentences1985In the absence of an objection, an error in the instruction may be assigned as a ground for a new trial only if the error is one of “fundamental law or controlling principle.” Wadena v. Bush, 305 Minn. 134, 151 , 232 N.W.2d 753, 763 (1975). 1. 1985In the absence of an objection, an error in the instruction may be assigned as a ground for a new trial only if the error is one of “fundamental law or controlling principle.” Wadena v. Bush, 305 Minn. 134, 151 , 232 N.W.2d 753, 763 (1975). 1. | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Ruvelsongreen2 sentences1975See, Walker v. Ruvelson, 257 Minn. 391 , 102 N. W. 2d 19 (1960). 1975See, Walker v. Ruvelson, 257 Minn. 391 , 102 N. W. 2d 19 (1960). | 1 | 1 |
Seward v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.green2 sentences1949Co. 222 Minn. 454, 457, 459 , 25 N. W. (2d) 221, 223, 224 , in charging under the facts of that case that plaintiff’s act of parking a truck was as a matter of law a proximate cause of his injuries, we said: “The error in the instruction of the court below was emphasized by its use of the ‘material element or substantial factor’ theory in defining proximate cause, a theory wholly inadequate where issues *233 such as we have here are involved. 1949Co. 222 Minn. 454, 457, 459 , 25 N. W. (2d) 221, 223, 224 , in charging under the facts of that case that plaintiff’s act of parking a truck was as a matter of law a proximate cause of his injuries, we said: “The error in the instruction of the court below was emphasized by its use of the ‘material element or substantial factor’ theory in defining proximate cause, a theory wholly inadequate where issues *233 such as we have here are involved. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. United States
green
2 sentences2008State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn.1998) (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 469-70 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (explaining that a court may exercise its discretion to correct the error only if the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings)). 2008State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn.1998) (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 469-70 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (explaining that a court may exercise its discretion to correct the error only if the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings)). | 2 | 2005–2008 |
State v. Caulfield
green
1 sentence2024See State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286, 291 (Minn. 1997); Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d at 314 ; see also Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967) (stating that “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberg
green
1 sentence2013This is because “an error in the standard of proof is only reversible error if it results in prejudice to the other party.” Kornberg v. Kornberg, 542 N.W.2d 379 , 387 n. 3 (Minn.1996); see also T.E.S. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co.
green
2 sentences1996Id. at 660 . 1996Id. at 660 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Schmidt v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1993Co., 376 N.W.2d 237 (Minn.App.1985), then incorrectly cited Van De Loo for the proposition that it was not necessary to assign error in a new trial motion in order to preserve the error if the claim was on a question of law. 1993Id. at 239 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Lindahl v. Morse
neutral
2 sentences1921The place where this collision occurred emphasizes, to my mind, the error of the rule applied in Lindahl v. Morse, 148 Minn. 167 , 181 N. W. 323 . 1921The place where this collision occurred emphasizes, to my mind, the error of the rule applied in Lindahl v. Morse, 148 Minn. 167 , 181 N. W. 323 . | 1 | 1921–1921 |
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.