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 1987–2026 1 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. Ulvinengreen2 sentences1988State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn.1981). 1987State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn.1981). | 3 | 3 |
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vaskogreen2 sentences2026See State v. Vasko, 889 N.W.2d 551, 556 (Minn. 2017) (“Because the meaning of a criminal statute is intertwined with the issue of whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the statute, it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute when evaluating an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim.”). 2018Where "the meaning of a criminal statute is intertwined with the issue of whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the statute, it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute when evaluating an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim." State v. Vasko , 889 N.W.2d 551 , 556 (Minn. 2017). | 2 | 3 |
Wright v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Wright, 765 N.W.2d at 93 (holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel where appellate counsel did not assert an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim because counsel could have legitimately concluded the claim would fail). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tomlingreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., State v. Nelson, 842 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Minn.2014); State v. Tomlin, 622 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Minn.2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., State v. Nelson, 842 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Minn.2014); State v. Tomlin, 622 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Minn.2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2008State v. Taylor, 650 N.W.2d 190, 206 (Minn.2002). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Norrisgreen1 sentence1995State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn.1989); State v. Norris, 428 N.W.2d 61, 66 (Minn.1988). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Webbgreen1 sentence1995State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn.1989); State v. Norris, 428 N.W.2d 61, 66 (Minn.1988). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fidelgreen1 sentence1993State v. Fidel, 451 N.W.2d 350, 352 (Minn.App.1990), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 13, 1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.