case-by-case analysis in Minnesota

2014See Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d at 489 (noting that this step of the analysis is consistent with the first step of the case-by-case analysis for the Eighth Amendment).

2014See Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d at 489 (noting that this step of the analysis is consistent with the first step of the case-by-case analysis for the Eighth Amendment).

2025Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 357, 367 (2017).

2016Compare Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 340 , 191 N W2d 418, 422 (1971) in which the Court stated that evidence of a juror's general "bias, motives, or beliefs should not be considered" with State v. Hayden Miller Co .. 263 Minn. 29, 35 , 116 NW2d 535, 539 (1962) in which the Court holds that bias resulting from specialized or personal knowledge of the dispute and withheld on voir dire is subject to inquiry.

2016Compare Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 340 , 191 N W2d 418, 422 (1971) in which the Court stated that evidence of a juror's general "bias, motives, or beliefs should not be considered" with State v. Hayden Miller Co .. 263 Minn. 29, 35 , 116 NW2d 535, 539 (1962) in which the Court holds that bias resulting from specialized or personal knowledge of the dispute and withheld on voir dire is subject to inquiry.

2016Instead, the Court continued to adhere to a case-by-case analysis, stating that “the Fourth Amendment mandates” that police officers obtain a warrant, provided they can “reasonably” do so “without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search.” Id. at-, 133 S.Ct. at 1561 , The Court in McNeely also, observed that, with advances- in technology, police officers are able to obtain a warrant in *35 some jurisdictions without physically appearing before a judge.

2016Instead, the Court continued to adhere to a case-by-case analysis, stating that “the Fourth Amendment mandates” that police officers obtain a warrant, provided they can “reasonably” do so “without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search.” Id. at-, 133 S.Ct. at 1561 , The Court in McNeely also, observed that, with advances- in technology, police officers are able to obtain a warrant in *35 some jurisdictions without physically appearing before a judge.

2016Compare Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 340 , 191 N W2d 418, 422 (1971) in which the Court stated that evidence of a juror's general "bias, motives, or beliefs should not be considered" with State v. Hayden Miller Co .. 263 Minn. 29, 35 , 116 NW2d 535, 539 (1962) in which the Court holds that bias resulting from specialized or personal knowledge of the dispute and withheld on voir dire is subject to inquiry.

2015See Davis, 547 U.S. at 822 , 126 S. Ct. at 2273-74 ; Wright, 726 N.W.2d at 471 .

2015See Davis, 547 U.S. at 822 , 126 S. Ct. at 2273-74 ; Wright, 726 N.W.2d at 471 .

2015Finally, because the parties’ reasonable expectations can be determined from the plain language of the lease, we note that the same result is required after consideration of 9 other relevant evidence.2 See Rohde, 820 N.W.2d at 15 (stating that “in addition to the actual language of a lease or insurance policy, courts engaged in a case-by-case analysis may also examine any other admissible evidence shedding light on the expectations of the parties” (quotations omitted)).

2015Peterson v. BASF Corp., 711 N.W.2d 470, 482 (Minn.2006). “[B]y their very nature, evidentiary rules demand a case by case analysis, an analysis best left to the trial judge familiar with the ‘setting’ of the case.” Benson v. N. Gopher Enters., Inc., 455 N.W.2d 444, 446 (Minn.1990).

2015Peterson v. BASF Corp., 711 N.W.2d 470, 482 (Minn. 2006). “[B]y their very nature, evidentiary rules demand a case by case analysis, an analysis best left to the trial judge familiar with the ‘setting’ of the case.” Benson v. N. Gopher Enters., Inc., 455 N.W.2d 444, 446 (Minn. 1990).

2015Peterson v. BASF Corp., 711 N.W.2d 470, 482 (Minn.2006). “[B]y their very nature, evidentiary rules demand a case by case analysis, an analysis best left to the trial judge familiar with the ‘setting’ of the case.” Benson v. N. Gopher Enters., Inc., 455 N.W.2d 444, 446 (Minn.1990).

2015Peterson v. BASF Corp., 711 N.W.2d 470, 482 (Minn. 2006). “[B]y their very nature, evidentiary rules demand a case by case analysis, an analysis best left to the trial judge familiar with the ‘setting’ of the case.” Benson v. N. Gopher Enters., Inc., 455 N.W.2d 444, 446 (Minn. 1990).

2013Under the case-by-case approach, we consider “all of the circumstances of the case to determine whether the sentence is unconstitutionally excessive.” Id. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 2021 .

2013Under the case-by-case approach, we consider “all of the circumstances of the case to determine whether the sentence is unconstitutionally excessive.” Id. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 2021 .

2012Co. v. Sahlberg, 126 Idaho 545 , 887 P.2d 1052, 1056 (1994) (directing lower courts to “focus on the terms of the lease agreement itself to determine what the reasonable expectations of the parties were as to who should bear the risk of loss for ... damage to the leased premises”).

2012Co. v. Sahlberg, 126 Idaho 545 , 887 P.2d 1052, 1056 (1994) (directing lower courts to “focus on the terms of the lease agreement itself to determine what the reasonable expectations of the parties were as to who should bear the risk of loss for ... damage to the leased premises”).

2010See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 533 F.2d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.1976) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse hid heroin on spouse for smuggling); Kirby v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 440 , 570 S.E.2d 832, 835 (2002) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse shot two rounds of ammunition into bedroom floor while wife was in adjoining room, fifteen feet away); State v. Thornton, 119 Wash.2d 578 , 835 P.2d 216, 218 (1992) (determining that burglary of spouse’s home was crime against spouse even though spouse was not in home at time); State v.

2010See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 533 F.2d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.1976) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse hid heroin on spouse for smuggling); Kirby v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 440 , 570 S.E.2d 832, 835 (2002) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse shot two rounds of ammunition into bedroom floor while wife was in adjoining room, fifteen feet away); State v. Thornton, 119 Wash.2d 578 , 835 P.2d 216, 218 (1992) (determining that burglary of spouse’s home was crime against spouse even though spouse was not in home at time); State v.

2010See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 533 F.2d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.1976) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse hid heroin on spouse for smuggling); Kirby v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 440 , 570 S.E.2d 832, 835 (2002) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse shot two rounds of ammunition into bedroom floor while wife was in adjoining room, fifteen feet away); State v. Thornton, 119 Wash.2d 578 , 835 P.2d 216, 218 (1992) (determining that burglary of spouse’s home was crime against spouse even though spouse was not in home at time); State v.

2010See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 533 F.2d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.1976) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse hid heroin on spouse for smuggling); Kirby v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 440 , 570 S.E.2d 832, 835 (2002) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse shot two rounds of ammunition into bedroom floor while wife was in adjoining room, fifteen feet away); State v. Thornton, 119 Wash.2d 578 , 835 P.2d 216, 218 (1992) (determining that burglary of spouse’s home was crime against spouse even though spouse was not in home at time); State v.

2010See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 533 F.2d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.1976) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse hid heroin on spouse for smuggling); Kirby v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 440 , 570 S.E.2d 832, 835 (2002) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse shot two rounds of ammunition into bedroom floor while wife was in adjoining room, fifteen feet away); State v. Thornton, 119 Wash.2d 578 , 835 P.2d 216, 218 (1992) (determining that burglary of spouse’s home was crime against spouse even though spouse was not in home at time); State v.

2010See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 533 F.2d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.1976) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse hid heroin on spouse for smuggling); Kirby v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 440 , 570 S.E.2d 832, 835 (2002) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse shot two rounds of ammunition into bedroom floor while wife was in adjoining room, fifteen feet away); State v. Thornton, 119 Wash.2d 578 , 835 P.2d 216, 218 (1992) (determining that burglary of spouse’s home was crime against spouse even though spouse was not in home at time); State v.

2010See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 533 F.2d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.1976) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse hid heroin on spouse for smuggling); Kirby v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 440 , 570 S.E.2d 832, 835 (2002) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse shot two rounds of ammunition into bedroom floor while wife was in adjoining room, fifteen feet away); State v. Thornton, 119 Wash.2d 578 , 835 P.2d 216, 218 (1992) (determining that burglary of spouse’s home was crime against spouse even though spouse was not in home at time); State v.

2010See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 533 F.2d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.1976) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse hid heroin on spouse for smuggling); Kirby v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 440 , 570 S.E.2d 832, 835 (2002) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse shot two rounds of ammunition into bedroom floor while wife was in adjoining room, fifteen feet away); State v. Thornton, 119 Wash.2d 578 , 835 P.2d 216, 218 (1992) (determining that burglary of spouse’s home was crime against spouse even though spouse was not in home at time); State v.

2010See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 533 F.2d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.1976) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse hid heroin on spouse for smuggling); Kirby v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 440 , 570 S.E.2d 832, 835 (2002) (holding that crime was committed against spouse when defendant spouse shot two rounds of ammunition into bedroom floor while wife was in adjoining room, fifteen feet away); State v. Thornton, 119 Wash.2d 578 , 835 P.2d 216, 218 (1992) (determining that burglary of spouse’s home was crime against spouse even though spouse was not in home at time); State v.

2007See McKune, 536 U.S. at 49 , 122 S.Ct. 2017 (O’Connor, J., concurring).

2007See McKune, 536 U.S. at 49 , 122 S.Ct. 2017 (O’Connor, J., concurring).

1997The common thread in the cases presuming prejudice is attorney conduct that is, “in general so antithetic to effective assistance ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ that a case-by-case analysis simply is not worth the cost.” Scarpa, 38 F.3d at 12 (emphasis omitted).