11 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tholegreen2 sentences2016In State v. Thole, this court stated, “Under the plain language of the [restitution] statute, a valid dispute arises only after an offender meets the threshold burden of raising a specific objection by affidavit.” 614 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Minn. App. 2000). 2014Under section 611A.045, a valid dispute “arises only after an offender meets the threshold burden of raising a specific objection by affidavit.” State v. Thole, 614 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Minn. App. 2000). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dopplergreen1 sentence2016Cf. State v. Doppler, 590 N.W.2d 627, 634 (Minn. 1999) (noting that parties agreed to waive 14-day statutory requirement to impanel grand jury). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gaiovnikgreen1 sentence2016The restitution statute states that “[a]n offender may challenge restitution, but must do so by requesting a hearing within 30 days of receiving written notification of the amount of restitution requested, or within 30 days of sentencing, whichever is later.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b)(2014) (emphasis added); see State v. Borg, 834 N.W.2d 194, 196 (Minn. 2013) (setting forth procedure for an offender to challenge restitution, including acknowledgement that under the restitution statute, the time for an offender to challenge claimed restitution expires 30 days after the offender receive | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Hughes v. State, 815 N.W.2d 602, 606 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that appellant’s due process rights were not violated when he received notice 25 of restitution claim and received restitution hearing); see also Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b) (2012) (“An offender may challenge restitution, but must do so by requesting a hearing within 30 days of receiving written notification of the amount of restitution requested, or within 30 days of sentencing, whichever is later.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Borggreen1 sentence2016The restitution statute states that “[a]n offender may challenge restitution, but must do so by requesting a hearing within 30 days of receiving written notification of the amount of restitution requested, or within 30 days of sentencing, whichever is later.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b)(2014) (emphasis added); see State v. Borg, 834 N.W.2d 194, 196 (Minn. 2013) (setting forth procedure for an offender to challenge restitution, including acknowledgement that under the restitution statute, the time for an offender to challenge claimed restitution expires 30 days after the offender receive | 1 | 1 |
State v. Anyanwugreen1 sentence2016See State v. Anyanwu, 681 N.W.2d 411 , 413 n.1 (Minn. App. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Minn. Stat. § 590.01 , subd. 1 (2012); see Washington, 845 N.W.2d at 210 . | 1 | 1 |
Vazquez v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rehn v. Fischleygreen2 sentences1998But cf. Rehn v. Fischley, 557 N.W.2d 328, 332-33 (Minn.1997) (noting that immunities are meant to immunize the government against suit rather than merely against liability). 1998But cf. Rehn v. Fischley, 557 N.W.2d 328, 332-33 (Minn.1997) (noting that immunities are meant to immunize the government against suit rather than merely against liability). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent
green
1 sentence2018"Under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(a), the offender bears the initial burden of production to challenge a restitution request." State v. Smith , 876 N.W.2d 310 , 336 (Minn. 2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Maurstad
green
1 sentence2014For example, in State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141 (Minn.2007), the issue was whether an offender could challenge his sentence on the ground that the district court had "erred in assigning ... a custody status point under Minn. Sent. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. John Russell Brown
green
1 sentence2010The parties disagree, however, as to whether the crime of aiding an offender is a theory of defense and as to whether the prohibition on lesser-but-nonincluded-offense instructions bars a defendant from instructing the jury on his theory of defense which happens to be a lesser but nonincluded crime. *132 Flowers cites United States v. Brown, 33 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir.1994), in support of his assertion that admission to aiding an offender is a defense against the charge of first-degree murder. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.