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 1972–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Richardsgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Richards, 456 N.W.2d 260, 264 (Minn. 1990) (noting that the validity of a defendant’s waiver of rights “‘depends, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused’” (quotation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Fort James Corporation v. Solo Cup Companygreen1 sentence2024The scope of an implicit waiver of the attorney-client privilege is limited to “communications relevant to that issue.” Walen, 563 N.W.2d at 752 ; see also Fort James Corp. v. Solo Cup Co., 412 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Evansgreen2 sentences2015See Evans, 756 N.W.2d at 875-76 (declining to interpret Minnesota’s peace-officer murder statute to require knowledge that the victim was an officer because the statute “is worded differently than statutes in many other jurisdictions” that include an explicit knowledge requirement). 2015See Evans, 756 N.W.2d at 875-76 (declining to interpret Minnesota’s peace-officer murder statute to require knowledge that the victim was an officer because the statute “is worded differently than statutes in many other jurisdictions” that include an explicit knowledge requirement). | 1 | 1 |
Bakker v. Metropolitan Pediatric, P. A.green1 sentence1986See Bakker v. Metropolitan Pediatric, P.A., 355 N.W.2d 330, 331 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Contempt of Emil Swensongreen2 sentences1980In re Swanson, 183 Minn. 602, 605 , 237 N.W. 589, 591 (1931). 1980In re Swanson, 183 Minn. 602, 605 , 237 N.W. 589, 591 (1931). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Auge v. Auge
red
2 sentences1996In Auge v. Auge, 334 N.W.2d 393 (Minn.1983), this court determined that Minn.Stat. § 518.18 (1994), governing modification of custody orders, created an implicit presumption that removal would be permitted. 1983Therefore, we concluded in Auge that section 518.18(d) should be construed as establishing an implicit presumption that removal will be permitted subject to the noncustodial parent’s ability to establish that removal is not in the best interests of the child. 334 N.W.2d at 399 . | 3 | 1983–1996 |
State v. Walen
green
1 sentence2024The scope of an implicit waiver of the attorney-client privilege is limited to “communications relevant to that issue.” Walen, 563 N.W.2d at 752 ; see also Fort James Corp. v. Solo Cup Co., 412 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini
green
2 sentences1997Nardini, 414 N.W.2d at 198 . 1997Nardini, 414 N.W.2d at 198 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Vale v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1972Mr. Justice Brennan, writing the minority opinion for reversal of the conviction, expressed the view that an unannounced entry was constitutionally permissible only in three exceptional circumstances ( 374 U. S. 47 , 83 S. Ct. 1636 , 10 L. ed. 2d 746): “Even if probable cause exists for the arrest of a person within, the Fourth Amendment is violated by an unannounced police intrusion into a private home, with or without an arrest warrant, except (1) where the persons within already know of the officers’ authority and purpose, or (2) where the officers are justifed in the belief that persons wi 1972Mr. Justice Brennan, writing the minority opinion for reversal of the conviction, expressed the view that an unannounced entry was constitutionally permissible only in three exceptional circumstances ( 374 U. S. 47 , 83 S. Ct. 1636 , 10 L. ed. 2d 746): “Even if probable cause exists for the arrest of a person within, the Fourth Amendment is violated by an unannounced police intrusion into a private home, with or without an arrest warrant, except (1) where the persons within already know of the officers’ authority and purpose, or (2) where the officers are justifed in the belief that persons wi | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.