12 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Stadsvoldgreen2 sentences2014Moreover, “distinctions in language in the same context are presumed to be intentional,” In re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323, 328-29 (Minn.2008), so a condition expressly mentioned in one clause of a subdivision provides evidence that the Legislature did not intend for the condition to apply to other clauses in which the condition is not stated. 2014Moreover, “distinctions in language in the same context are presumed to be intentional,” In re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323, 328-29 (Minn. 2008), so a condition expressly mentioned in one clause of a subdivision provides evidence that the Legislature did not intend for the condition to apply to other clauses in which the condition is not stated. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kluckgreen2 sentences2014Cf. State v. Kluck, 299 Minn. 161, 167 , 217 N.W.2d 202, 207 (1974) (“While the court below may not have explicitly warned defendant of the possibility of exclusion itself, there was certainly adequate warning that corrective measure would be taken if defendant’s disorderly conduct continued.”). 2014Cf. State v. Kluck, 299 Minn. 161, 167 , 217 N.W.2d 202, 207 (1974) (“While the court below may not have explicitly warned defendant of the possibility of exclusion itself, there was certainly adequate warning that corrective measure would be taken if defendant’s disorderly conduct continued.”). | 1 | 1 |
Olmanson v. LeSueur Countygreen1 sentence2013On appeal from summary judgment, we determine “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact, and whether the lower court erred in its application of the law.” Olmanson v. LeSueur Cnty., 693 N.W.2d 876, 879 (Minn.2005). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Budreaugreen1 sentence2008See State v. Budreau, 641 N.W.2d 919, 926 (Minn.2002) (“[W]e presume that the jury followed the instructions as given.”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Welfare of M.E.M.green1 sentence2008In addition, we note that the presumption of such an implied waiver does not apply to a “trial [under rule 26.01] in which the waiver to testify must be in writing or on the record.” In re Welfare of 674 N.W.2d 208, 214 (Minn.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Osbornegreen2 sentences2006See id. (listing the parties’ arguments regarding whether Martin had waived his right to be present, but ultimately not deciding the question); cf. State v. Osborne, 715 N.W.2d 436, 442 (Minn.2006) (“When it comes to the waiver of at least two fundamental rights, the right to a jury trial and the right to counsel, our law is clear that these rights cannot be waived by silence.”). 7 Rather than requiring an explicit waiver, we have said with respect to the defendant’s right to be present that “the fact that a personal waiver does not appear of record on appeal does not mean that there was no wa 2006See id. (listing the parties' arguments regarding whether Martin had *620 waived his right to be present, but ultimately not deciding the question); cf. State v. Osborne, 715 N.W.2d 436, 442 (Minn.2006) ("When it comes to the waiver of at least two fundamental rights, the right to a jury trial and the right to counsel, our law is clear that these rights cannot be waived by silence."). [7] Rather than requiring an explicit waiver, we have said with respect to the defendant's right to be present that "the fact that a personal waiver does not appear of record on appeal does not mean that there wa | 1 | 1 |
State v. Waregreen2 sentences2006See id. (listing the parties’ arguments regarding whether Martin had waived his right to be present, but ultimately not deciding the question); cf. State v. Osborne, 715 N.W.2d 436, 442 (Minn.2006) (“When it comes to the waiver of at least two fundamental rights, the right to a jury trial and the right to counsel, our law is clear that these rights cannot be waived by silence.”). 7 Rather than requiring an explicit waiver, we have said with respect to the defendant’s right to be present that “the fact that a personal waiver does not appear of record on appeal does not mean that there was no wa 2006See id. (listing the parties’ arguments regarding whether Martin had waived his right to be present, but ultimately not deciding the question); cf. State v. Osborne, 715 N.W.2d 436, 442 (Minn.2006) (“When it comes to the waiver of at least two fundamental rights, the right to a jury trial and the right to counsel, our law is clear that these rights cannot be waived by silence.”). 7 Rather than requiring an explicit waiver, we have said with respect to the defendant’s right to be present that “the fact that a personal waiver does not appear of record on appeal does not mean that there was no wa | 1 | 1 |
O'MEARA v. Stategreen1 sentence2004Our supreme court recently affirmed that “[d]ue process :.. requires that each of these findings be made by a jury based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” O’Meara v. State, 679 N.W.2d 334, 340 (Minn.2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonasongreen1 sentence1991This explicit exception to the general rule allowing stayed sentences “ ‘conclusively eliminate[s] the possibility of probation in cases coming under the minimum-sentence statute.’ ” State v. Jonason, 292 N.W.2d 730, 733 (Minn.1980) (quoting State v. Moose, 266 N.W.2d 521, 525-26 (Minn.1978)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moosegreen1 sentence1991This explicit exception to the general rule allowing stayed sentences “ ‘conclusively eliminate[s] the possibility of probation in cases coming under the minimum-sentence statute.’ ” State v. Jonason, 292 N.W.2d 730, 733 (Minn.1980) (quoting State v. Moose, 266 N.W.2d 521, 525-26 (Minn.1978)). | 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. Jenson
green
1 sentence2010Jenson, 312 N.W.2d at 675 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Griebel v. Tri-State Insurance Co. of Minnesota
green
2 sentences1987This explicit exception came into play in Griebel v. Tri-State Insurance Co., 311 N.W.2d 156 (Minn.1981), in which the supreme court determined that “when a claimant receives benefits under no-fault and workers’ compensation, the legislature has indicated that the no-fault benefits must be reduced by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits paid.” Id. at 159 . 1987This explicit exception came into play in Griebel v. Tri-State Insurance Co., 311 N.W.2d 156 (Minn.1981), in which the supreme court determined that “when a claimant receives benefits under no-fault and workers’ compensation, the legislature has indicated that the no-fault benefits must be reduced by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits paid.” Id. at 159 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Adams v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1985Id. at 444 , 136 N.W.2d at 82 . 1985Id. at 444 , 136 N.W.2d at 82 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Marriage of Sudheimer v. Sudheimer
green
1 sentence1985This court recently required an explicit warning in Sudheimer v. Sudheimer, 372 N.W.2d 792 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.