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.
10 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLPgreen2 sentences2026“Appellate courts review a district court’s compliance with remand instructions under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, 704 N.W.2d 759, 763 (Minn. 2005). 2024“Appellate courts review a district court’s compliance with remand instructions under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, 704 N.W.2d 759, 763 (Minn. 2005). 14 Here, our remand instructions to the district court were not specific. | 4 | 5 |
Dobbins v. Stategreen1 sentence2017“Though trial courts generally have broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, they cannot act in a way that is inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” Dobbins v. State, 845 N.W.2d 148, 156 (Minn. 2013) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pegelgreen1 sentence2016See State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251, 253 (Minn. App. 2011); see also State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006). 8 The record indicates that, prior to the sentencing hearing, the district court reviewed the pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report and a psychosexual evaluation report. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bertschgreen1 sentence2016See State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251, 253 (Minn. App. 2011); see also State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006). 8 The record indicates that, prior to the sentencing hearing, the district court reviewed the pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report and a psychosexual evaluation report. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Muntgreen1 sentence2015State v. Munt, 831 N.W.2d 569, 576 (Minn. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cassidygreen1 sentence2007State v. Cassidy, 567 N.W.2d 707, 710 (Minn.1997) (applying general rule on need for adequate record in criminal case involving discretionary decision regarding conduct of trial in absen-tia). | 1 | 1 |
Halverson v. Village of Deerwoodgreen1 sentence2005See Halverson v. Vill. of Deerwood, 322 N.W.2d 761, 766-67 (Minn.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marriage of Potter v. Potter
green
1 sentence2015Potter, 471 N.W.2d at 114 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.