ease bar in Minnesota

19 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2006 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
United States v. Bookergreen scotus · 2004 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006First, in Leake , the admission used to enhance Leake’s sentence was an admission to an essential element of a prior offense to which Leake had pleaded guilty — a “fact established by a plea of guilty.” Leake, 699 N.W.2d at 324 ; see Booker, 543 U.S. at 244 , 125 S.Ct. 738 . 2006First, in Leake , the admission used to enhance Leake’s sentence was an admission to an essential element of a prior offense to which Leake had pleaded guilty — a “fact established by a plea of guilty.” Leake, 699 N.W.2d at 324 ; see Booker, 543 U.S. at 244 , 125 S.Ct. 738 .	1	1
Wagener v. McDonaldgreen minnctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 1 sentence 1998See id. at 189 .	1	1
United States v. Rex S. Taylorgreen ca10 · 1987 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997See United States v. Baldwin, 987 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1993) (whether an instruction misstated an element of the crime); United States v. Fulford, 980 F.2d 1110, 1116 (7th Cir.1992) (whether hearsay testimony constituted plain error); United States v. Reyes-Alvarado, 963 F.2d 1184, 1187 (9th Cir.1992) (whether admission of a co-defendant’s statement was invited error); United States v. Taylor, 828 F.2d 630, 633 (10th Cir.1987) (whether an instruction on the burden of proof in regard to venue was erroneous).	1	1
United States v. Servando Reyes-Alvarado, United States of America v. Martin Gonzalez-Ramirezgreen ca9 · 1992 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997See United States v. Baldwin, 987 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1993) (whether an instruction misstated an element of the crime); United States v. Fulford, 980 F.2d 1110, 1116 (7th Cir.1992) (whether hearsay testimony constituted plain error); United States v. Reyes-Alvarado, 963 F.2d 1184, 1187 (9th Cir.1992) (whether admission of a co-defendant’s statement was invited error); United States v. Taylor, 828 F.2d 630, 633 (10th Cir.1987) (whether an instruction on the burden of proof in regard to venue was erroneous).	1	1
United States v. James Fulfordgreen ca7 · 1992 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997See United States v. Baldwin, 987 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1993) (whether an instruction misstated an element of the crime); United States v. Fulford, 980 F.2d 1110, 1116 (7th Cir.1992) (whether hearsay testimony constituted plain error); United States v. Reyes-Alvarado, 963 F.2d 1184, 1187 (9th Cir.1992) (whether admission of a co-defendant’s statement was invited error); United States v. Taylor, 828 F.2d 630, 633 (10th Cir.1987) (whether an instruction on the burden of proof in regard to venue was erroneous).	1	1
United States v. David Lee Baldwingreen ca9 · 1993 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997See United States v. Baldwin, 987 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1993) (whether an instruction misstated an element of the crime); United States v. Fulford, 980 F.2d 1110, 1116 (7th Cir.1992) (whether hearsay testimony constituted plain error); United States v. Reyes-Alvarado, 963 F.2d 1184, 1187 (9th Cir.1992) (whether admission of a co-defendant’s statement was invited error); United States v. Taylor, 828 F.2d 630, 633 (10th Cir.1987) (whether an instruction on the burden of proof in regard to venue was erroneous).	1	1
Vernon Williams & Son Construction, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co.green tenn · 1979 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 1 sentence 1982Vernon Williams & Son Construction, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 591 S.W.2d 760, 765 (Tenn.1979).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (19)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Leake green minn · 2005 1 sentence 2006First, in Leake , the admission used to enhance Leake’s sentence was an admission to an essential element of a prior offense to which Leake had pleaded guilty — a “fact established by a plea of guilty.” Leake, 699 N.W.2d at 324 ; see Booker, 543 U.S. at 244 , 125 S.Ct. 738 .	1	2006–2006
State v. Lehman green minn · 1994 1 sentence 1998In an appropriate ease where a hearing is warranted, the [district] court could hold the hearing notwithstanding the passage of a significant period of time following trial. 511 N.W.2d at 3 -4 n. 1 (citations omitted).	1	1998–1998
State v. Gayles green minn · 1982 1 sentence 1997Gayles, 327 N.W.2d at 3 .	1	1997–1997
State v. Fenney green minn · 1989 1 sentence 1990The court went on to say, “[ajlthough wrongly admitted, under the facts of this ease the error was not reversible error.” Id.	1	1990–1990
Person v. Bowe green minn · 1900 2 sentences 1950A common illustration is one where liability is admitted and the dispute relates to the amount due, as in Person v. Bowe, 79 Minn. 238 , 82 N. W. 480 .” 560 However, in the ease at bar, it seems clear that the admission was made in the course of an investigation rather than in negotiations for settlement. 1950A common illustration is one where liability is admitted and the dispute relates to the amount due, as in Person v. Bowe, 79 Minn. 238 , 82 N. W. 480 .” 560 However, in the ease at bar, it seems clear that the admission was made in the course of an investigation rather than in negotiations for settlement.	1	1950–1950
Bennett v. State neutral okla · 1930 2 sentences 1950Bennett v. State, 147 Okl. 14 , 294 P. 149 ; cf. State ex rel. 1950Bennett v. State, 147 Okl. 14 , 294 P. 149 ; cf. State ex rel.	1	1950–1950
Teal v. Scandinavian-American Bank green minn · 1911 2 sentences 1921Bank, 114 Minn. 435 , 131 N. W. 486 , that “plaintiff’s hands in so far as concerns defendant are clean. * * * His (her) hands may perhaps he somewhat sothed as to others, but that fact does not inure to the benefit of defendant.” It has been remarked that “ 'clean hands’ means a clear record with respect to the transaction with the defendant and not with respect to any third person.” American Assn. v. Innis, 109 Ky. 595, 605 , 60 S. W. 388 . 1921Bank, 114 Minn. 435 , 131 N. W. 486 , that “plaintiff’s hands in so far as concerns defendant are clean. * * * His (her) hands may perhaps he somewhat sothed as to others, but that fact does not inure to the benefit of defendant.” It has been remarked that “ 'clean hands’ means a clear record with respect to the transaction with the defendant and not with respect to any third person.” American Assn. v. Innis, 109 Ky. 595, 605 , 60 S. W. 388 .	1	1921–1921
United States v. Erie Railroad Company green scotus · 1915 1 sentence 1921Co. 237 U. S. 402 , 35 Sup. Ct. 621, 59 L. ed. 1019; United States v. C.	1	1921–1921
American Ass'n v. Innis green kyctapp · 1901 2 sentences 1921Bank, 114 Minn. 435 , 131 N. W. 486 , that “plaintiff’s hands in so far as concerns defendant are clean. * * * His (her) hands may perhaps he somewhat sothed as to others, but that fact does not inure to the benefit of defendant.” It has been remarked that “ 'clean hands’ means a clear record with respect to the transaction with the defendant and not with respect to any third person.” American Assn. v. Innis, 109 Ky. 595, 605 , 60 S. W. 388 . 1921Bank, 114 Minn. 435 , 131 N. W. 486 , that “plaintiff’s hands in so far as concerns defendant are clean. * * * His (her) hands may perhaps he somewhat sothed as to others, but that fact does not inure to the benefit of defendant.” It has been remarked that “ 'clean hands’ means a clear record with respect to the transaction with the defendant and not with respect to any third person.” American Assn. v. Innis, 109 Ky. 595, 605 , 60 S. W. 388 .	1	1921–1921
Clark v. Clark green mich · 1915 2 sentences 1921Clark v. Clark, 189 Mich. 652 , 155 N. W. 507 , illustrates the distinction between the cases relied on and the ease at bar. 1921Clark v. Clark, 189 Mich. 652 , 155 N. W. 507 , illustrates the distinction between the cases relied on and the ease at bar.	1	1921–1921
Shevlin v. Shevlin green · 1905 1 sentence 1920Shevlin v. Shevlin, 96 Minn. 498 , 105 N. W. 257 , did not involve a contract made after a dispute had arisen, nor did the plaintiff therein have the aid of a lawyer either in advising him or in drawing the contract as in the ease at bar.	1	1920–1920
Stallman v. Shea neutral minn · 1906 2 sentences 1920We think the ease at bar fairly falls within the rule stated in Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , 109 N. W. 824 , and Johnson v. Brastad, 143 Minn. 332 , 173 N. W. 668 , and that plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence was a question for the jury. 2. 1920We think the ease at bar fairly falls within the rule stated in Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , 109 N. W. 824 , and Johnson v. Brastad, 143 Minn. 332 , 173 N. W. 668 , and that plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence was a question for the jury. 2.	1	1920–1920
Selover v. Streckfus Steamboat Line neutral minn · 1917 2 sentences 1920The statement in Selover v. Streckfus Steamboat Line, 136 Minn. 426 , 162 N. W. 518 , that an affidavit of merits "as a general rule is necessary in applications of this character” was not intended to overrule the decisions above cited. 1920The statement in Selover v. Streckfus Steamboat Line, 136 Minn. 426 , 162 N. W. 518 , that an affidavit of merits "as a general rule is necessary in applications of this character” was not intended to overrule the decisions above cited.	1	1920–1920
Johnson v. Brastad neutral minn · 1919 2 sentences 1920We think the ease at bar fairly falls within the rule stated in Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , 109 N. W. 824 , and Johnson v. Brastad, 143 Minn. 332 , 173 N. W. 668 , and that plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence was a question for the jury. 2. 1920We think the ease at bar fairly falls within the rule stated in Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , 109 N. W. 824 , and Johnson v. Brastad, 143 Minn. 332 , 173 N. W. 668 , and that plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence was a question for the jury. 2.	1	1920–1920
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. City of Stafford neutral kan · 1914 2 sentences 1920Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Stafford, 93 Kan. 539 , 144 Pac. 852 , presents the same situation, and yet the bank was there allowed to retain a portion of the money it received on the contractor’s order. 1920Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Stafford, 93 Kan. 539 , 144 Pac. 852 , presents the same situation, and yet the bank was there allowed to retain a portion of the money it received on the contractor’s order.	1	1920–1920
Battey v. Barker green kan · 1901 1 sentence 1918There is a note on the rights of children in the homestead of a parent in 56 L.R.A. 33 .	1	1918–1918
Unruh v. Roemer neutral minn · 1916 2 sentences 1917Those cases as -well as that of Unruh v. Roemer, 135 Minn. 127 , 160 N. W. 251 , proceed on the theory that a principal may ratify and adopt the act of an. agent in executing a written contract for the sale of real estate, although the -agent had no written authority to execute it at the time it was made. 1917Those cases as -well as that of Unruh v. Roemer, 135 Minn. 127 , 160 N. W. 251 , proceed on the theory that a principal may ratify and adopt the act of an. agent in executing a written contract for the sale of real estate, although the -agent had no written authority to execute it at the time it was made.	1	1917–1917
Williams v. Stewart neutral minn · 1879 1 sentence 1915The material terms of the contract in the ease at bar appear less clearly than those in the Rahm case, or those in the case of Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 .	1	1915–1915
Janney, Semple & Co. v. Goehringer green minn · 1893 2 sentences 1914In Jamney, Semple & Co. v. Goehringer, 52 Minn. 428 , 54 N. W. 481 , the lessees of certain premises constructed a building thereon. 1914In Jamney, Semple & Co. v. Goehringer, 52 Minn. 428 , 54 N. W. 481 , the lessees of certain premises constructed a building thereon.	1	1914–1914

Where else courts name it

CA 478 (1874–2021) MO 144 (1860–2015) NY 132 (1843–1980) OK 122 (1901–2010) IA 115 (1879–2006) GA 82 (1900–1963) TX 79 (1868–2014) OR 71 (1894–2025) PA 66 (1882–2017) IN 58 (1866–2012) ID 57 (1886–2013) OH 47 (1884–2011) LA 37 (1899–2015) NM 35 (1896–2010) WY 34 (1894–2017) KY 33 (1899–2007) UT 32 (1901–2016) IL 31 (1865–2001) MI 31 (1915–1973) NJ 30 (1902–2017) WV 29 (1900–2014) AL 24 (1906–2009) AR 23 (1898–1970) MA 23 (1877–1973) MT 23 (1896–1969) CO 22 (1892–2016) TN 22 (1928–2005) FL 21 (1922–2016) MD 19 (1910–2014) MN 19 (1914–2006) HI 17 (1895–2016) NC 16 (1900–1951) RI 15 (1885–2003) AZ 15 (1907–2013) WA 13 (1890–1935) CT 13 (1887–1982) ND 12 (1910–2016) VA 12 (1877–2013) PR 11 (1934–1972) MS 10 (1908–2014) NE 10 (1880–1946) DE 8 (1977–1998) ME 7 (1889–1998) VT 7 (1914–2015) WI 6 (1878–1977) AK 5 (1967–1995) DC 4 (1980–2005) KS 3 (1902–1995) SD 3 (1997–2006) SC 2 (1923–2008)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check