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.
23 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2018 0 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. Abrahamsongreen2 sentences2016This court recently reiterated that “the presence of factors supporting departure does not require departure.” State v. Abrahamson, 758 N.W.2d 332, 337 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Mar. 31, 2009). 2015“Factors relevant to dispositional departures . . . include amenability to probation . . . [and] the defendant’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” State v. Abrahamson, 758 N.W.2d 332, 337 (Minn. App. 2008) (citations omitted), review denied (Minn. 31 Mar. 2009 ). “[But] the presence of factors supporting departure does not require departure.” Id. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Dixongreen2 sentences1984Id. (citing People v. Dixon, 392 Mich. 691 , 222 N.W.2d 749, 751 (1974)). 1984Id. (citing People v. Dixon, 392 Mich. 691 , 222 N.W.2d 749, 751 (1974)). | 2 | 2 |
Great Northern Railway Co. v. Becher-Barrett-Lockerby Co.green2 sentences1996In Great Northern, this court commented that: the rule forbidding the modification of findings of fact by any other judge than the one who made them arose from the circumstance that where witnesses give their testimony in the presence and hearing of the trial judge he thereby is better able to determine the worth and weight of the testimony than one who has not seen or heard the witnesses on the stand. 200 Minn. at 261 , 274 N.W. at 523 ; see also Bahnsen v. Gilbert, 55 Minn. 334 , 56 N.W. 1117 (1893) (holding that a successor judge to a judge whose term had expired could not make findings in 1996In Great Northern, this court commented that: the rule forbidding the modification of findings of fact by any other judge than the one who made them arose from the circumstance that where witnesses give their testimony in the presence and hearing of the trial judge he thereby is better able to determine the worth and weight of the testimony than one who has not seen or heard the witnesses on the stand. 200 Minn. at 261 , 274 N.W. at 523 ; see also Bahnsen v. Gilbert, 55 Minn. 334 , 56 N.W. 1117 (1893) (holding that a successor judge to a judge whose term had expired could not make findings in | 1 | 2 |
State v. Jensengreen2 sentences1984In State v. Jensen, 351 N.W.2d 29 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), this court pointed out that the purpose of the presence requirement is to prevent warrantless misdemean- or arrests based on information from third parties. 1984State v. Jensen, 351 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) indicates information obtained by one police officer can be imputed to another police officer to satisfy the presence requirement, but that information from a third party cannot be so imputed. | 1 | 2 |
Goldberg v. Kellygreen2 sentences2015Such opportunities are provided so a participant will be able “to defend [a position on an unfavorable decision] by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence orally.” Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267-68 , 90 S. Ct. 1011, 1020 (1970). 2015Such opportunities are provided so a participant will be able “to defend [a position on an unfavorable decision] by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence orally.” Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267-68 , 90 S. Ct. 1011, 1020 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Olsongreen1 sentence2014“The district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to dispositionally depart from a presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation.” State v. Olson, 765 N.W.2d 662, 663 (Minn. App. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Veum v. Sheerangreen1 sentence2013Co. v. Becher-Barrett-Lockerby Co., 200 Minn. 258, 261 , 274 N.W. 522, 523 (1937))); Stiff v. Associated Sewing Supply Co., 436 N.W.2d 777, 779 (Minn.1989) (noting that the deference given to a trial court’s findings of fact "is based on the judge having had the advantage of fully hearing the testimony, observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify, and acquiring a thorough familiarity with all of the circumstances of the case”); State v. King, 88 Minn. 175, 181 , 92 N.W. 965, 968 (1903) (noting that a witness’s "appearance, demeanor, and the manner in which he gave his testimony” co | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberggreen1 sentence2013Accord Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414, 423-24 (Minn.2004) (postconviction court erred by concluding that witnesses were unreliable without first evaluating the credibility of the witnesses at an evidentiary hearing); Kornberg v. Kornberg, 542 N.W.2d 379, 385 (Minn.1996) (" '[Wjhere witnesses give their testimony in the presence and hearing of the trial judge he thereby is better able to determine the worth and weight of the testimony than one who has not seen or heard the witnesses on the stand.’ ” (quoting Great N. Ry. | 1 | 1 |
Opsahl v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Accord Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414, 423-24 (Minn.2004) (postconviction court erred by concluding that witnesses were unreliable without first evaluating the credibility of the witnesses at an evidentiary hearing); Kornberg v. Kornberg, 542 N.W.2d 379, 385 (Minn.1996) (" '[Wjhere witnesses give their testimony in the presence and hearing of the trial judge he thereby is better able to determine the worth and weight of the testimony than one who has not seen or heard the witnesses on the stand.’ ” (quoting Great N. Ry. | 1 | 1 |
Stiff v. Associated Sewing Supply Co.green1 sentence2013Co. v. Becher-Barrett-Lockerby Co., 200 Minn. 258, 261 , 274 N.W. 522, 523 (1937))); Stiff v. Associated Sewing Supply Co., 436 N.W.2d 777, 779 (Minn.1989) (noting that the deference given to a trial court’s findings of fact "is based on the judge having had the advantage of fully hearing the testimony, observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify, and acquiring a thorough familiarity with all of the circumstances of the case”); State v. King, 88 Minn. 175, 181 , 92 N.W. 965, 968 (1903) (noting that a witness’s "appearance, demeanor, and the manner in which he gave his testimony” co | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2009See State v. Jackson, 325 N.W.2d 819, 823 (Minn.1982) (presuming that drafters of Minn. R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hendrygreen1 sentence2003See State v. Hendry, 636 N.W.2d 158, 165 (Minn.App.2001) (concluding, as matter of law, trial court did not err in failing to contact attorneys when jury asked housekeeping question that court did not answer), review denied (Minn. Jan. 29, 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Bahnsen v. Gilbertgreen2 sentences1996In Great Northern, this court commented that: the rule forbidding the modification of findings of fact by any other judge than the one who made them arose from the circumstance that where witnesses give their testimony in the presence and hearing of the trial judge he thereby is better able to determine the worth and weight of the testimony than one who has not seen or heard the witnesses on the stand. 200 Minn. at 261 , 274 N.W. at 523 ; see also Bahnsen v. Gilbert, 55 Minn. 334 , 56 N.W. 1117 (1893) (holding that a successor judge to a judge whose term had expired could not make findings in 1996In Great Northern, this court commented that: the rule forbidding the modification of findings of fact by any other judge than the one who made them arose from the circumstance that where witnesses give their testimony in the presence and hearing of the trial judge he thereby is better able to determine the worth and weight of the testimony than one who has not seen or heard the witnesses on the stand. 200 Minn. at 261 , 274 N.W. at 523 ; see also Bahnsen v. Gilbert, 55 Minn. 334 , 56 N.W. 1117 (1893) (holding that a successor judge to a judge whose term had expired could not make findings in | 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. Stevenson
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Lefthand
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 800 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. King
neutral
1 sentence2013Co. v. Becher-Barrett-Lockerby Co., 200 Minn. 258, 261 , 274 N.W. 522, 523 (1937))); Stiff v. Associated Sewing Supply Co., 436 N.W.2d 777, 779 (Minn.1989) (noting that the deference given to a trial court’s findings of fact "is based on the judge having had the advantage of fully hearing the testimony, observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify, and acquiring a thorough familiarity with all of the circumstances of the case”); State v. King, 88 Minn. 175, 181 , 92 N.W. 965, 968 (1903) (noting that a witness’s "appearance, demeanor, and the manner in which he gave his testimony” co | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Oberg
green
1 sentence2008Oberg, 627 N.W.2d at 724 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Niska
green
1 sentence2003While necessarily broader than “actually viewed by a minor,” the presence requirement is subject to two reasonable broader interpretations: either “in the proximity of a minor” or “reasonably capable of being viewed by a minor.” Under the rule of lenity, we adopt the narrower of these two reasonable interpretations. 2 See Niska, 514 N.W.2d at 265 ; Rewis, 401 U.S. at 812 , 91 S.Ct. 1056 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Rewis v. United States
green
2 sentences2003While necessarily broader than “actually viewed by a minor,” the presence requirement is subject to two reasonable broader interpretations: either “in the proximity of a minor” or “reasonably capable of being viewed by a minor.” Under the rule of lenity, we adopt the narrower of these two reasonable interpretations. 2 See Niska, 514 N.W.2d at 265 ; Rewis, 401 U.S. at 812 , 91 S.Ct. 1056 . 2003While necessarily broader than “actually viewed by a minor,” the presence requirement is subject to two reasonable broader interpretations: either “in the proximity of a minor” or “reasonably capable of being viewed by a minor.” Under the rule of lenity, we adopt the narrower of these two reasonable interpretations. 2 See Niska, 514 N.W.2d at 265 ; Rewis, 401 U.S. at 812 , 91 S.Ct. 1056 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Stevenson
green
1 sentence2003Id. at 862 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1998In its findings of fact, the postconviction court found that respondent, in the belief that the witnesses would change their testimony at trial, would not have accepted a guilty plea and that respondent's assertion that he could have agreed to and the court would have accepted an Alford plea [1] was "pure speculation." The postconviction court concluded that respondent failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel under the United States Supreme Court test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) and our decision in Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 5 1998In its findings of fact, the postconviction court found that respondent, in the belief that the witnesses would change their testimony at trial, would not have accepted a guilty plea and that respondent's assertion that he could have agreed to and the court would have accepted an Alford plea [1] was "pure speculation." The postconviction court concluded that respondent failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel under the United States Supreme Court test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) and our decision in Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 5 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Gates v. State
green
2 sentences1998In its findings of fact, the post-conviction court found that respondent, in the belief that the witnesses would change their testimony at trial, would not have accepted a guilty plea and that respondent’s assertion that he could have agreed to and the court would have accepted an Alford plea 1 was “pure speculation.” The postconviction court concluded that respondent failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel under the United States' Supreme Court test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2062 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) and our decision in Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 5 1998In its findings of fact, the postconviction court found that respondent, in the belief that the witnesses would change their testimony at trial, would not have accepted a guilty plea and that respondent's assertion that he could have agreed to and the court would have accepted an Alford plea [1] was "pure speculation." The postconviction court concluded that respondent failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel under the United States Supreme Court test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) and our decision in Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 5 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. McDonnell
green
1 sentence1985Schlemme cites State v. McDonnell, 353 N.W.2d 678 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), for the proposition that information from a third party may not be used to satisfy the presence requirement. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Kelsey v. State
green
2 sentences1984Kelsey v. State, 298 Minn. 531 , 214 N.W.2d 236 (1974). 1984Kelsey v. State, 298 Minn. 531 , 214 N.W.2d 236 (1974). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. See
neutral
1 sentence1955Johnson v. Hutches, 205 Minn. 383 , 285 N. W. 881 ; Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , 275 N. W. 846 ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , 242 N. W. 283 ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , 235 N. W. 630 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , 230 N. W. 776 ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , 218 N. W. 249 ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , 214 N. W. 55 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1955Johnson v. Hutches, 205 Minn. 383 , 285 N. W. 881 ; Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , 275 N. W. 846 ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , 242 N. W. 283 ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , 235 N. W. 630 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , 230 N. W. 776 ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , 218 N. W. 249 ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , 214 N. W. 55 . 1955Johnson v. Hutches, 205 Minn. 383 , 285 N. W. 881 ; Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , 275 N. W. 846 ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , 242 N. W. 283 ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , 235 N. W. 630 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , 230 N. W. 776 ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , 218 N. W. 249 ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , 214 N. W. 55 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Johnson v. Kutches
neutral
2 sentences1955Johnson v. Hutches, 205 Minn. 383 , 285 N. W. 881 ; Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , 275 N. W. 846 ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , 242 N. W. 283 ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , 235 N. W. 630 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , 230 N. W. 776 ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , 218 N. W. 249 ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , 214 N. W. 55 . 1955Johnson v. Hutches, 205 Minn. 383 , 285 N. W. 881 ; Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , 275 N. W. 846 ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , 242 N. W. 283 ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , 235 N. W. 630 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , 230 N. W. 776 ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , 218 N. W. 249 ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , 214 N. W. 55 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Olson v. Purity Baking Co.
green
2 sentences1955Johnson v. Hutches, 205 Minn. 383 , 285 N. W. 881 ; Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , 275 N. W. 846 ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , 242 N. W. 283 ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , 235 N. W. 630 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , 230 N. W. 776 ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , 218 N. W. 249 ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , 214 N. W. 55 . 1955Johnson v. Hutches, 205 Minn. 383 , 285 N. W. 881 ; Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , 275 N. W. 846 ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , 242 N. W. 283 ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , 235 N. W. 630 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , 230 N. W. 776 ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , 218 N. W. 249 ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , 214 N. W. 55 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Ginsburg v. Byers
neutral
1 sentence1955Johnson v. Hutches, 205 Minn. 383 , 285 N. W. 881 ; Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , 275 N. W. 846 ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , 242 N. W. 283 ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , 235 N. W. 630 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , 230 N. W. 776 ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , 218 N. W. 249 ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , 214 N. W. 55 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Wicker v. North States Construction Co. Inc.
green
2 sentences1955Johnson v. Hutches, 205 Minn. 383 , 285 N. W. 881 ; Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , 275 N. W. 846 ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , 242 N. W. 283 ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , 235 N. W. 630 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , 230 N. W. 776 ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , 218 N. W. 249 ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , 214 N. W. 55 . 1955Johnson v. Hutches, 205 Minn. 383 , 285 N. W. 881 ; Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , 275 N. W. 846 ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , 242 N. W. 283 ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , 235 N. W. 630 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , 230 N. W. 776 ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , 218 N. W. 249 ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , 214 N. W. 55 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| Jacobs v. Belland neutral | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| Mechler v. McMahon green | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. neutral | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| In Re Farwell's Estate neutral | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| National Box Co. v. Bradley green | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| Schneider v. Berry green | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| Treat v. Kellogg neutral | 1 | 1926–1926 |
| Steinbach v. Frevel neutral | 1 | 1926–1926 |
| Wunder v. Turner neutral | 1 | 1926–1926 |
| Freeburg v. Honemann green | 1 | 1926–1926 |
| Saunders v. . Gilbert green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.