11 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jadwin v. City of Daytongreen1 sentence2010See Breza, 311 Minn. at 237 , 248 N.W.2d at 922 (willful or without justification); Beal v. Reinertson, 298 Minn. 542, 544 , 215 N.W.2d 57, 58 (1974) (specific date for discovery); Jadwin v. City of Dayton, 379 N.W.2d 194, 197 (Minn.App.1985) (moving party must demonstrate prejudice); Sudheimer v. Sudheimer, 372 N.W.2d 792, 795 (Minn.App.1985) (warning about possible sanctions); Williams v. Grand Lodge of Freemasonry AF & AM, 355 N.W.2d 477, 480 (Minn.App.1984) (isolated event or part of a pattern), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984). a. | 1 | 1 |
Breza v. Schmitzgreen2 sentences2010See Breza, 311 Minn. at 237 , 248 N.W.2d at 922 (willful or without justification); Beal v. Reinertson, 298 Minn. 542, 544 , 215 N.W.2d 57, 58 (1974) (specific date for discovery); Jadwin v. City of Dayton, 379 N.W.2d 194, 197 (Minn.App.1985) (moving party must demonstrate prejudice); Sudheimer v. Sudheimer, 372 N.W.2d 792, 795 (Minn.App.1985) (warning about possible sanctions); Williams v. Grand Lodge of Freemasonry AF & AM, 355 N.W.2d 477, 480 (Minn.App.1984) (isolated event or part of a pattern), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984). a. 2010See Breza, 311 Minn. at 237 , 248 N.W.2d at 922 (willful or without justification); Beal v. Reinertson, 298 Minn. 542, 544 , 215 N.W.2d 57, 58 (1974) (specific date for discovery); Jadwin v. City of Dayton, 379 N.W.2d 194, 197 (Minn.App.1985) (moving party must demonstrate prejudice); Sudheimer v. Sudheimer, 372 N.W.2d 792, 795 (Minn.App.1985) (warning about possible sanctions); Williams v. Grand Lodge of Freemasonry AF & AM, 355 N.W.2d 477, 480 (Minn.App.1984) (isolated event or part of a pattern), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984). a. | 1 | 1 |
Beal v. Reinertsongreen2 sentences2010See Breza, 311 Minn. at 237 , 248 N.W.2d at 922 (willful or without justification); Beal v. Reinertson, 298 Minn. 542, 544 , 215 N.W.2d 57, 58 (1974) (specific date for discovery); Jadwin v. City of Dayton, 379 N.W.2d 194, 197 (Minn.App.1985) (moving party must demonstrate prejudice); Sudheimer v. Sudheimer, 372 N.W.2d 792, 795 (Minn.App.1985) (warning about possible sanctions); Williams v. Grand Lodge of Freemasonry AF & AM, 355 N.W.2d 477, 480 (Minn.App.1984) (isolated event or part of a pattern), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984). a. 2010See Breza, 311 Minn. at 237 , 248 N.W.2d at 922 (willful or without justification); Beal v. Reinertson, 298 Minn. 542, 544 , 215 N.W.2d 57, 58 (1974) (specific date for discovery); Jadwin v. City of Dayton, 379 N.W.2d 194, 197 (Minn.App.1985) (moving party must demonstrate prejudice); Sudheimer v. Sudheimer, 372 N.W.2d 792, 795 (Minn.App.1985) (warning about possible sanctions); Williams v. Grand Lodge of Freemasonry AF & AM, 355 N.W.2d 477, 480 (Minn.App.1984) (isolated event or part of a pattern), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984). a. | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Sudheimer v. Sudheimergreen1 sentence2010See Breza, 311 Minn. at 237 , 248 N.W.2d at 922 (willful or without justification); Beal v. Reinertson, 298 Minn. 542, 544 , 215 N.W.2d 57, 58 (1974) (specific date for discovery); Jadwin v. City of Dayton, 379 N.W.2d 194, 197 (Minn.App.1985) (moving party must demonstrate prejudice); Sudheimer v. Sudheimer, 372 N.W.2d 792, 795 (Minn.App.1985) (warning about possible sanctions); Williams v. Grand Lodge of Freemasonry AF & AM, 355 N.W.2d 477, 480 (Minn.App.1984) (isolated event or part of a pattern), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984). a. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Grand Lodge of Freemasonry AF & AMgreen1 sentence2010See Breza, 311 Minn. at 237 , 248 N.W.2d at 922 (willful or without justification); Beal v. Reinertson, 298 Minn. 542, 544 , 215 N.W.2d 57, 58 (1974) (specific date for discovery); Jadwin v. City of Dayton, 379 N.W.2d 194, 197 (Minn.App.1985) (moving party must demonstrate prejudice); Sudheimer v. Sudheimer, 372 N.W.2d 792, 795 (Minn.App.1985) (warning about possible sanctions); Williams v. Grand Lodge of Freemasonry AF & AM, 355 N.W.2d 477, 480 (Minn.App.1984) (isolated event or part of a pattern), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984). a. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2004Similarly, the court here gave an instruction substantially similar to the instruction in Robinson where we affirmed the conviction without comment on the instruction. *835 See 539 N.W.2d at 236 . 2004See 539 N.W.2d at 286 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lynchgreen2 sentences2001See State v. Lynch, 590 N.W.2d 75, 81 (Minn.1999) (stating that cautionary-instructions based on CRIMJIG 2.01 and CRIMJIG 3.16 “assured that the jury did not give improper weight to the evidence”) As a preliminary matter, we address appellant’s claim that his conviction should be reviewed under the standard applicable to a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. 6 Appellant argues this standard is applicable because Carter’s testimony that appellant actively participated in the murder was corroborated only by circumstantial evidence. 2001See State v. Lynch, 590 N.W.2d 75, 81 (Minn.1999) (stating that cautionary instructions based on CRIMJIG 2.01 and CRIMJIG 3.16 "assured that the jury did not give improper weight to the evidence.") As a preliminary matter, we address appellant's claim that his conviction should be reviewed under the standard applicable to a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. [6] Appellant argues this standard is applicable because Carter's testimony that appellant actively participated in the murder was corroborated only by circumstantial evidence. | 1 | 1 |
McGrath v. TCF BANK SAV., FSBgreen1 sentence1996The instructions to the jury required Cox to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Crown CoCo’s proffered reasons “were a pretext for terminating [her] * * * because she reported a violation of the [law] * * Crown CoCo also contends the trial court gave the wrong standard of proof by requiring Cox to show “an illegitimate reason more likely than not motivated the discharge decision.” This language comports with the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., 509 N.W.2d 365, 366 (Minn.1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence1983CRIMJIG 7.08 (1982 pocket part at 15); see also State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Frontier Insurance Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp.
green
1 sentence2026The following factors are relevant under Frontier: (1) if the court set a date certain by which compliance was required, (2) if the court gave a warning of potential sanctions for non-compliance, (3) if the failure to cooperate with discovery was an isolated event or part of a pattern, (4) if the failure to comply was willful or without justification, and (5) if the moving party has demonstrated prejudice. 788 N.W.2d at 923 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Sanders
green
1 sentence1998Id. at 200-01 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Tibbetts
green
1 sentence1991Unlike the instruction in State v. Tibbetts, 281 N.W.2d 499 (Minn.1979) and Moll v. State, 351 N.W.2d 639 (Minn.App.1984), relied upon by appellant, that directed the jury that a reasonable construction that the touching was for sexual satisfaction was sufficient to convict, the trial court’s instructions in this case, read as a whole, properly directed the jury to search for the truth and apply the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Moll v. State
green
1 sentence1991Unlike the instruction in State v. Tibbetts, 281 N.W.2d 499 (Minn.1979) and Moll v. State, 351 N.W.2d 639 (Minn.App.1984), relied upon by appellant, that directed the jury that a reasonable construction that the touching was for sexual satisfaction was sufficient to convict, the trial court’s instructions in this case, read as a whole, properly directed the jury to search for the truth and apply the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Sauer
green
2 sentences1985In Sauer , the trial court gave this instruction: [G]ood character may have its weight in any case to this extent: that if there is a question of doubt, it may determine the matter in his favor. 38 Minn. at 440 , 38 N.W. at 356 . 1985In Sauer , the trial court gave this instruction: [G]ood character may have its weight in any case to this extent: that if there is a question of doubt, it may determine the matter in his favor. 38 Minn. at 440 , 38 N.W. at 356 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Ferguson v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Group Co.
green
1 sentence1985Thus, we find no basis to apply the holding of Ferguson v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Group Co., 348 N.W.2d 730 (Minn.1984), with respect to the future medical expenses. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Hubred v. Wagner
neutral
2 sentences1974Those cases arising in Minnesota which involve a pedestrian’s duty to maintain a proper lookout arise in fact situations where the pedestrian was crossing a roadway. 2 In Brodd v. Priem, 236 Minn. 148 , 52 N. W. 2d 429 (1952), and Hubred v. Wagner, 217 Minn. 129 , 14 N. W. 2d 115 (1944), our court had occasion to consider claims of plaintiff-pedestrians who were struck from behind while walking on the right hand side of a road in violation of Minn. St. 169.21, subd. 5. 1974Those cases arising in Minnesota which involve a pedestrian’s duty to maintain a proper lookout arise in fact situations where the pedestrian was crossing a roadway. 2 In Brodd v. Priem, 236 Minn. 148 , 52 N. W. 2d 429 (1952), and Hubred v. Wagner, 217 Minn. 129 , 14 N. W. 2d 115 (1944), our court had occasion to consider claims of plaintiff-pedestrians who were struck from behind while walking on the right hand side of a road in violation of Minn. St. 169.21, subd. 5. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Brodd v. Priem
neutral
2 sentences1974Those cases arising in Minnesota which involve a pedestrian’s duty to maintain a proper lookout arise in fact situations where the pedestrian was crossing a roadway. 2 In Brodd v. Priem, 236 Minn. 148 , 52 N. W. 2d 429 (1952), and Hubred v. Wagner, 217 Minn. 129 , 14 N. W. 2d 115 (1944), our court had occasion to consider claims of plaintiff-pedestrians who were struck from behind while walking on the right hand side of a road in violation of Minn. St. 169.21, subd. 5. 1974Those cases arising in Minnesota which involve a pedestrian’s duty to maintain a proper lookout arise in fact situations where the pedestrian was crossing a roadway. 2 In Brodd v. Priem, 236 Minn. 148 , 52 N. W. 2d 429 (1952), and Hubred v. Wagner, 217 Minn. 129 , 14 N. W. 2d 115 (1944), our court had occasion to consider claims of plaintiff-pedestrians who were struck from behind while walking on the right hand side of a road in violation of Minn. St. 169.21, subd. 5. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.