11 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Troggreen2 sentences2016Guidelines 2.D.3 (stating that the following mitigating and aggravating factors are “a nonexclusive list of factors that may be used as reasons for departure”); Trog, 323 N.W.2d at 31 (“[J]ust as a defendant’s particular unamenability to probation will justify departure in the form of an execution of a presumptively stayed sentence, a defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting will justify departure in the form of a stay of execution of a presumptively executed sentence.”). 2016Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Dalsengreen1 sentence2004State v. Hart, 477 N.W.2d 732, 740 (Minn.App.1991), review denied (Minn. Jan. 16, 1992); State v. Dalsen, 444 N.W.2d 582, 584 (Minn.App.1989), review denied (Minn. Oct. 13, 1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hartgreen1 sentence2004State v. Hart, 477 N.W.2d 732, 740 (Minn.App.1991), review denied (Minn. Jan. 16, 1992); State v. Dalsen, 444 N.W.2d 582, 584 (Minn.App.1989), review denied (Minn. Oct. 13, 1989). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Welfare of D.F.B.green1 sentence1994See In re Welfare of D.F.B., 433 N.W.2d 79, 81 (Minn. 1988). *924 An order regarding adult reference will not be reversed unless its findings are clearly erroneous so as to constitute an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Onyelobi v. State
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Harris
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 829 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Tucker v. State
green
1 sentence2015The sentencing guidelines provide “‘a nonexclusive list of factors which may be used as reasons for departure.’” Id. (quoting Minn. Sent. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Wolf v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
green
1 sentence2011Nonetheless the court insists on answering a question under section 590.01 that the parties do not ask us to address. 2 In doing so, the court makes the following conclusions — without briefing by the parties — in order to apply the interests-of-justice exception to Rickert’s untimely petition for postconviction relief: (1) Rickert properly invoked the interests-of-justice exception by referencing it in his motion for an extension of time to file a postcon-viction petition, even though the exception is not mentioned at all in Rickert’s petition; (2) Rickert’s petition is not frivolous; and (3) | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Barnes v. State
green
1 sentence2011None of these conclusions arise from “prejudicial errors [that] are obvious from the record,” Barnes, 768 N.W.2d at 363 n. 2, which is the only exception to the waiver rule that we have consistently applied in our case law. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Chambers
green
2 sentences2004Chambers, 589 N.W.2d at 475 . 2004Chambers, 589 N.W.2d at 475 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Hudson v. United States
green
2 sentences2000In McKinney , this court also adopted the following language in Hudson that enumerates a nonexclusive list of factors to consider in making that initial inquiry: (1) ‘Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint’; (2) “whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment’; (3) Vhether it *916 comes into play only on a finding of scienter’; (4) ‘whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment — retribution and deterrence’; (5) “whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime’; (6) ‘whether an alternative purpose to which it may rati 2000In McKinney , this court also adopted the following language in Hudson that enumerates a nonexclusive list of factors to consider in making that initial inquiry: (1) ‘Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint’; (2) “whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment’; (3) Vhether it *916 comes into play only on a finding of scienter’; (4) ‘whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment — retribution and deterrence’; (5) “whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime’; (6) ‘whether an alternative purpose to which it may rati | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. McKinney
green
1 sentence2000In McKinney , this court also adopted the following language in Hudson that enumerates a nonexclusive list of factors to consider in making that initial inquiry: (1) ‘Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint’; (2) “whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment’; (3) Vhether it *916 comes into play only on a finding of scienter’; (4) ‘whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment — retribution and deterrence’; (5) “whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime’; (6) ‘whether an alternative purpose to which it may rati | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Scales
green
1 sentence1996The nonexclusive list of factors from the Model Code includes the willfulness of the violation, the extent of the deviation from lawful conduct, the extent to which the violation was likely to lead to a misunderstanding of legal rights, and the extent to which suppressing the statement would “tend to prevent [other] violations.” Id. at 592 n. 5. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.