12 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1893–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
C.O. v. Doegreen2 sentences2013See C.O. v. Doe, 757 N.W.2d 343, 352-53 (Minn.2008) (stating that when a statutorily created cause of action does not identify the applicable burden and standard of proof, the party seeking relief from the statute generally bears the burden of proof under the preponderance of the evidence standard). 2010See C.O. v. Doe, 757 N.W.2d 343, 352 (Minn.2008); Dohney v. Allstate Ins. | 2 | 2 |
Martin v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Martin, 825 N.W.2d at 740 ; see also Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2012) (setting the burden and standard of proof at evidentiary hearings). 2014See, e.g., Martin, 825 N.W.2d at 740 ; see also Minn. Stat. § 590.04 , subd. 3 (2012) (setting the burden and standard of proof at evidentiary hearings). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Estate of Kinneygreen1 sentence2008See Estate of Kinney, 733 N.W.2d 118, 127 (Minn.2007) (concluding that the party challenging an antenup-tial agreement bears the burden of proof); Wallace v. Carpenter Elec. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. A. Guy Crouch, III and Michael J. Fryegreen1 sentence2005United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497, 1523 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. McCoy, 977 F.2d 706, 711 (1st Cir.1992); 3 Wayne R. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James W. McCoygreen1 sentence2005United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497, 1523 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. McCoy, 977 F.2d 706, 711 (1st Cir.1992); 3 Wayne R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. LaTourellegreen1 sentence1985State v. LaTourelle, 343 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Minn.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Powell v. State
neutral
1 sentence1998The court of appeals erred by improperly shifting the burden to the defense counsel: "Clemons failed to show that he took appropriate steps to inform Powell of the legal procedures and effects of the plea offers.” Powell, 562 N.W.2d at 19 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Matter of Schultz, Etc.
green
1 sentence1996ANALYSIS The general standard of proof for an administrative hearing, such as the disciplinary proceeding here, is “a preponderance of the evidence, unless the substantive law provides a different burden or standard.” Minn.R. 1400.7300, subpt. 5 (1991); In re Schultz, 375 N.W.2d 509 , 514 (Minn.App.1985). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. McKenzie
green
2 sentences1995In State v. Bowles, 530 N.W.2d 521 (Minn.1995), and State v. McKenzie, 532 N.W.2d 210 (Minn.1995), this court addressed the concern that jury anonymity could lead jurors to infer guilt and, as a result, place a burden on the presumption of innocence. 1995In Bowles , we held that “an anonymous jury may be impanelled where the trial court: (a) determines there is strong reason to believe that the jury needs protection from external threats to its members’ safety or impartiality; and (b) takes reasonable precautions to minimize any possible prejudicial effect the jurors’ anonymity might have on the defendant.” Id. at 530-31 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Bowles
green
1 sentence1995In State v. Bowles, 530 N.W.2d 521 (Minn.1995), and State v. McKenzie, 532 N.W.2d 210 (Minn.1995), this court addressed the concern that jury anonymity could lead jurors to infer guilt and, as a result, place a burden on the presumption of innocence. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Gram v. Village of Shoreview
green
2 sentences1992Gram , 259 Minn, at 154, 106 N.W.2d at 559 . 1992Gram, 259 Minn. at 154 , 106 N.W.2d at 559 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Mullaney v. Wilbur
green
2 sentences1983He views this burden as a violation of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 , 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975), in that it relieves the state of its obligation to prove each element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 1983He views this burden as a violation of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 , 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975), in that it relieves the state of its obligation to prove each element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Lesher v. Getman
neutral
1 sentence1893Lesher v. Getman, 30 Minn. 330 , ( 15 N. W. 309 ;) Westfield v. Mayo, 122 Mass. 109 . | 1 | 1893–1893 |
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.