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.
18 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rameygreen2 sentences2026“Usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” Id. 2023“Usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” Id. | 10 | 15 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2014“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, and usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Davis, 735 N.W.2d 674, 681 (Minn. 2007). 2014Under that standard, “[a]n error is plain if it is clear or obvious, and usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” Id. (quotations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State of Minnesota v. Christian Portillo, A21-1621, Supreme Court, December 13, 2023green1 sentence2026“An error is plain if it contravenes a principle that is conclusively resolved at the time of appeal.” Portillo, 998 N.W.2d at 250 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Prtinegreen1 sentence2016To determine whether Officer Vitale’s testimony affected appellant’s substantial rights, we apply the factors set forth in State v. Prtine, 784 N.W.2d 303, 314-15 (Minn. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Phippsgreen1 sentence2016The OFP prohibits “any contact with [C.L.] whether in person, by telephone, mail or electronic mail or messaging, through a third party, or by any other means.” Drake cites State v. Phipps, to support the position that an unanswered call does not constitute contact. 820 N.W.2d 282, 286 (Minn. App. 2012). | 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. Griller
green
2 sentences2015“Usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006). 7 “The third prong, requiring that the error affect substantial rights, is satisfied if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741 . 2015“The third prong, requiring that the error affect substantial rights, is satisfied if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741 . | 3 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Strommen
green
1 sentence2016“Usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Larson
green
1 sentence2014If all three prongs are met, this court then determines whether the error needs to be corrected to ensure the “fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Larson, 787 N.W.2d at 600 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.