Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2019 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. Rameygreen1 sentence2016The state bears the burden to “show that there is no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 302 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Montanaro v. Stategreen1 sentence2015To conclude that the third element is not met, we must determine that “considerable evidence” in the record establishes the defendant’s guilt, State v. Kelley, 855 N.W.2d 269, 284 (Minn. 2014), or that, “as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could find” that the defendant did not commit the crime, Montanaro v. State, 802 N.W.2d 726, 733 (Minn. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelleygreen1 sentence2015To conclude that the third element is not met, we must determine that “considerable evidence” in the record establishes the defendant’s guilt, State v. Kelley, 855 N.W.2d 269, 284 (Minn. 2014), or that, “as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could find” that the defendant did not commit the crime, Montanaro v. State, 802 N.W.2d 726, 733 (Minn. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Matthewsgreen1 sentence2014State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543, 549 (Minn. 2010) (“An error is plain if it is clear and obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”). 7 The state argues that no error exists because Detective Ueland’s testimony was admissible under an exception to the general rule. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Colvingreen1 sentence2012In State v. Colvin, 629 N.W.2d 135, 138 (Minn.App.2001), rev’d, 645 N.W.2d 449 (Minn.2002), which indirectly addressed the elements of felony violation of an OFP, we stated that “[t]he state is required to prove the existence, and defendant’s awareness, of the order for protection, in addition to a violation of the order.” However, the supreme court, in reversing our Colvin decision, rejected this court’s overall reasoning. | 1 | 1 |
Race v. Stategreen2 sentences2008The State argues that the test set out in Race v. State, 417 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Minn. 1987), for all other newly-discovered evidence should be applied. 2008The State argues that the test set out in Race v. State, 417 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Minn.1987), for all other newly-discovered evidence should be applied. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Guerragreen1 sentence2004See State v. Weltzin, 618 N.W.2d 600, 603 (Minn.App.2000); State v. Guerra, 562 N.W.2d 10, 12-13 (Minn.App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weltzingreen1 sentence2004See State v. Weltzin, 618 N.W.2d 600, 603 (Minn.App.2000); State v. Guerra, 562 N.W.2d 10, 12-13 (Minn.App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Engelhard v. Webergreen2 sentences1986State v. Webber, 96 Minn. 422, 429 , 105 N.W. 490, 492 (1905). 1986State v. Webber, 96 Minn. 422, 429 , 105 N.W. 490, 492 (1905). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Lathrop
green
2 sentences2019The State argues that our analysis in Miller v. Lathrop , 50 Minn. 91 , 52 N.W. 274 , 274 (1892) (describing an interpreter as the "agent" of the party for whom the interpreter is translating), is dispositive of the question presented here. 2019The State argues that our analysis in Miller v. Lathrop , 50 Minn. 91 , 52 N.W. 274 , 274 (1892) (describing an interpreter as the "agent" of the party for whom the interpreter is translating), is dispositive of the question presented here. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. McCormick
green
1 sentence2017Finally, the State argues that our standard of review creates confusion for appellate courts, noting that the court of appeals has said it can sometimes be difficult to identify the “circumstances proved,” State v. McCormick, 835 N.W.2d 498 , 505-06 n.2 (Minn. App. 2013), and has suggested that juries are in the best position to determine which inferences are reasonable, State v. Seavey, No. A13-0138, 2013 WL 5976070 , at *5 (Minn. App. Nov. 12, 2013) (Smith, J., concurring specially). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. McCullum
green
1 sentence2014Based on a footnote in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S. Ct. 2240 (1976), the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted an exception to the general rule outlined in McCullum, 289 N.W.2d at 93 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Doyle v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2014Based on a footnote in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S. Ct. 2240 (1976), the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted an exception to the general rule outlined in McCullum, 289 N.W.2d at 93 . 2014Based on a footnote in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S. Ct. 2240 (1976), the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted an exception to the general rule outlined in McCullum, 289 N.W.2d at 93 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Colvin
green
1 sentence2012In State v. Colvin, 629 N.W.2d 135, 138 (Minn.App.2001), rev’d, 645 N.W.2d 449 (Minn.2002), which indirectly addressed the elements of felony violation of an OFP, we stated that “[t]he state is required to prove the existence, and defendant’s awareness, of the order for protection, in addition to a violation of the order.” However, the supreme court, in reversing our Colvin decision, rejected this court’s overall reasoning. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Williamson v. United States
green
2 sentences2006Jihad argued on direct appeal that the statement at issue was not truly self-inculpatory and therefore admission of the statement violated the rule in Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994). 2006Jihad argued on direct appeal that the statement at issue was not truly self-inculpatory and therefore admission of the statement violated the rule in Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Nieting v. Blondell
green
2 sentences1979The cause of action in this case arose prior to August 1, 1976, the date from which sovereign immunity was abolished by Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122 , 235 N.W.2d 597 (1975). 1979The cause of action in this case arose prior to August 1, 1976, the date from which sovereign immunity was abolished by Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122 , 235 N.W.2d 597 (1975). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.