principles framework in Minnesota

2023The Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted “the principles and framework of Terry for evaluating the reasonableness of seizures during traffic stops even when a minor law has been violated.” State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353, 363 (Minn. 2004).

2007Rather, we stated that we follow “the principles and framework of Terry [when] evaluating the reasonableness of [searches and] seizures during traffic stops.” Id.

2010The district court must first identify the judicial function at issue because “the inherent authority of the judiciary is limited to those functions that are essential to the existence, dignity, and function of a court because it is a court.” Id. at 276 (quotations omitted). “[T]he relief requested by the court or aggrieved party [must be] necessary to the performance of the judicial function as contemplated in our state constitution.” Id. at 275 (quotation omitted).

2010The district court must first identify the judicial function at issue because “the inherent authority of the judiciary is limited to those functions that are essential to the existence, dignity, and function of a court because it is a court.” Id. at 276 (quotations omitted). “[T]he relief requested by the court or aggrieved party [must be] necessary to the performance of the judicial function as contemplated in our state constitution.” Id. at 275 (quotation omitted).

2023We conclude that, even if Rutt’s claims did not satisfy each element of collateral estoppel, the probate court did not err by concluding that Rutt should be precluded from litigating the remaining claims set forth in the petition because it has already conclusively adjudicated the underlying issues giving rise to those claims. 6 See Loo v. Loo, 520 N.W.2d 740, 743-44 (Minn. 1994) (reasoning that “[a]lthough none of the principles or doctrine requiring that judicial decisions have preclusive effect appl[ied] to this case in a technical sense,” if the respondent’s motion required adjudication of

2023We conclude that, even if Rutt’s claims did not satisfy each element of collateral estoppel, the probate court did not err by concluding that Rutt should be precluded from litigating the remaining claims set forth in the petition because it has already conclusively adjudicated the underlying issues giving rise to those claims. 6 See Loo v. Loo, 520 N.W.2d 740, 743-44 (Minn. 1994) (reasoning that “[a]lthough none of the principles or doctrine requiring that judicial decisions have preclusive effect appl[ied] to this case in a technical sense,” if the respondent’s motion required adjudication of

2015State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353, 363 (Minn. 2004); 5 see also Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1614 (2015) (affirming Terry principles apply to traffic stops).

2005While very few of our cases address the principles of rule construction, we said in House v. Hanson that: “the words of a court rule, like those of a statute, must be taken and construed in the sense in which they were understood and intended at the time the rule was promulgated.” 1 245 Minn. 466, 473 , 72 N.W.2d 874, 878 (1955).

2005While very few of our cases address the principles of rule construction, we said in House v. Hanson that: “the words of a court rule, like those of a statute, must be taken and construed in the sense in which they were understood and intended at the time the rule was promulgated.” 1 245 Minn. 466, 473 , 72 N.W.2d 874, 878 (1955).

1987See Ozenna v. Parmelee, 377 N.W.2d 483, 489 (Minn.Ct.App.1985).