Smith test in Minnesota

2026See Anderson, 811 N.W.2d at 165 (providing that, on review of an agency decision, appellate courts “examine the record to review questions 12 affecting the jurisdiction of the agency, the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to the merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it” (quotation omitted)).

2024See State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286, 291 (Minn. 1997).

2024See State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286, 291 (Minn. 1997).

2016See Waller, 467 U.S. at 45 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 (stating that the right to “an open trial may give way in certain cases to, other rights or interests, such as the defendant’s right to a fair trial or the government’s interest in inhibiting disclosure of sensitive information”). - Second, the court’s reasoning applies to every instance in which a court elects to conduct proceedings outside of the hearing of the jury: if the press and the public are present for such proceedings, then there is always the possibility that the information might somehow reach the jury.

2016See Waller, 467 U.S. at 45 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 (stating that the right to “an open trial may give way in certain cases to, other rights or interests, such as the defendant’s right to a fair trial or the government’s interest in inhibiting disclosure of sensitive information”). - Second, the court’s reasoning applies to every instance in which a court elects to conduct proceedings outside of the hearing of the jury: if the press and the public are present for such proceedings, then there is always the possibility that the information might somehow reach the jury.

2015Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44 , 216 N.W.2d 124, 127 (1974) (determining that “when parties have voluntarily entered a relationship in which plaintiff assumes well-known, incidental risks[] . . . the defendant has no duty to protect the plaintiff”). 15 In this case, there was no evidence presented to support Smith’s claim that the lack of a safety guardrail was the direct and proximate cause of her injury.

2015Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44 , 216 N.W.2d 124, 127 (1974) (determining that “when parties have voluntarily entered a relationship in which plaintiff assumes well-known, incidental risks[] . . . the defendant has no duty to protect the plaintiff”). 15 In this case, there was no evidence presented to support Smith’s claim that the lack of a safety guardrail was the direct and proximate cause of her injury.

2015(App Br 14-23). “[T]he existence of a duty . . . is a legal question to be determined by the judge, not the jury.” Balder v. Haley, 399 N.W.2d 77, 81 (Minn. 1987).

1999See Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 16-17 , 162 N.W.2d 698, 700-01 (1968) (requiring the “strongest of reasons” to "withdraw plea after conviction where effect would be to seriously prejudice state and warning against use of guilty plea as tactical device to frustrate prosecution); cf. Wensman v. State, 342 N.W.2d 150, 151 (Minn.1984) (noting withdrawal of plea possible where two-year delay did not cause prejudice to prosecution).

1999See Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 16-17 , 162 N.W.2d 698, 700-01 (1968) (requiring the “strongest of reasons” to "withdraw plea after conviction where effect would be to seriously prejudice state and warning against use of guilty plea as tactical device to frustrate prosecution); cf. Wensman v. State, 342 N.W.2d 150, 151 (Minn.1984) (noting withdrawal of plea possible where two-year delay did not cause prejudice to prosecution).

1999See Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 16-17 , 162 N.W.2d 698, 700-01 (1968) (requiring the “strongest of reasons” to "withdraw plea after conviction where effect would be to seriously prejudice state and warning against use of guilty plea as tactical device to frustrate prosecution); cf. Wensman v. State, 342 N.W.2d 150, 151 (Minn.1984) (noting withdrawal of plea possible where two-year delay did not cause prejudice to prosecution).