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 1987–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chambers v. Mississippigreen2 sentences2016See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 , 93 S. Ct. 1038, 1045 (1973); State v. Reese, 692 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 2005). 2016See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 , 93 S. Ct. 1038, 1045 (1973); State v. Reese, 692 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 2005). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Reesegreen2 sentences2016See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 , 93 S. Ct. 1038, 1045 (1973); State v. Reese, 692 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 2005). 2010See State v. Reese, 692 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn.2005). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Postgreen1 sentence2016State v. Post, 512 N.W.2d 99, 102 (Minn. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Reilly v. Berrygreen2 sentences2012And without the assistance of expert forensic pathologists, defendants will be placed at an “ ‘unfair disadvantage.’” Id. at 82 n. 8, 105 S.Ct. 1087 (quoting Reilly v. Berry, 250 N.Y. 456 , 166 N.E. 165, 167 (1929) (Cardozo, C.J.)). 2012And without the assistance of expert forensic pathologists, defendants will be placed at an “ ‘unfair disadvantage.’” Id. at 82 n. 8, 105 S.Ct. 1087 (quoting Reilly v. Berry, 250 N.Y. 456 , 166 N.E. 165, 167 (1929) (Cardozo, C.J.)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jenkinsgreen1 sentence2011A defendant has a right to present a meaningful defense, which “includes the right to present evidence that a third party may have committed the crime for which the defendant is charged.” State v. Jenkins, 782 N.W.2d 211, 226 (Minn.2010); see also Minn. Const. art. 1 § 6. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Larsongreen1 sentence2011But a defendant who wishes to admit alternative perpetrator evidence must first make a threshold showing that the evidence the defendant seeks to admit has an “inherent tendency to connect the alternative perpetrator to the commission of the charged crime.” State v. Larson, 788 N.W.2d 25, 36-37 (Minn.2010) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Bixler v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); Bixler v. State, 582 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Minn.1998). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Solid Waste Permit for the NSP Red Wing Ash Disposal Facilitygreen1 sentence2004In In re Solid Waste Permit for the NSP Red Wing Ash Disposal Facility, 421 N.W.2d 398, 405 (Minn.App.1988) review denied (Minn. May 18, 1988), the petitioners argued that the Environmental Rights Act and the Environmental Policy Act *335 guaranteed them a right to a meaningful hearing which they claim they were denied. | 1 | 1 |
Daniels v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1995See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 538-41 , 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1914-16 , 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) (due process can be satisfied by postdeprivation remedies in which a full and meaningful hearing is available), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 , 106 S.Ct. 662 , 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986); Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111 , 84 S.Ct. 242, 245 , 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963) (state court judgment entitled to full faith and credit in other states when it is determined that questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in original court). 2. 1995See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 538-41 , 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1914-16 , 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) (due process can be satisfied by postdeprivation remedies in which a full and meaningful hearing is available), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 , 106 S.Ct. 662 , 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986); Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111 , 84 S.Ct. 242, 245 , 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963) (state court judgment entitled to full faith and credit in other states when it is determined that questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in original court). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Parratt v. Taylorred2 sentences1995See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 538-41 , 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1914-16 , 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) (due process can be satisfied by postdeprivation remedies in which a full and meaningful hearing is available), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 , 106 S.Ct. 662 , 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986); Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111 , 84 S.Ct. 242, 245 , 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963) (state court judgment entitled to full faith and credit in other states when it is determined that questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in original court). 2. 1995See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 538-41 , 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1914-16 , 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) (due process can be satisfied by postdeprivation remedies in which a full and meaningful hearing is available), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 , 106 S.Ct. 662 , 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986); Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111 , 84 S.Ct. 242, 245 , 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963) (state court judgment entitled to full faith and credit in other states when it is determined that questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in original court). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Contos v. Herbstgreen1 sentence1989See Contos v. Herbst, 278 N.W.2d 732, 743 (Minn.1979), reh’g denied (March 13, 1979) (failure to provide a meaningful hearing prior to forfeiture of mineral rights constituted a due process violation). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Lucas v. BOARD OF ED., ETC.green1 sentence1989ANALYSIS Upon review of an agency’s decision to terminate an employee, it is this court’s function to set aside the agency’s decision only if it is “fraudulent, arbitrary, unreasonable, not supported by substantial evidence on the record, * * * or is based on an erroneous theory of law.” See State ex rel Lucas v. Board of Education and Independent School District No. 99, Esko, 277 N.W.2d 524, 526 (Minn.1979); Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2012And without the assistance of expert forensic pathologists, defendants will be placed at an “ ‘unfair disadvantage.’” Id. at 82 n. 8, 105 S.Ct. 1087 (quoting Reilly v. Berry, 250 N.Y. 456 , 166 N.E. 165, 167 (1929) (Cardozo, C.J.)). 2012And without the assistance of expert forensic pathologists, defendants will be placed at an “ ‘unfair disadvantage.’” Id. at 82 n. 8, 105 S.Ct. 1087 (quoting Reilly v. Berry, 250 N.Y. 456 , 166 N.E. 165, 167 (1929) (Cardozo, C.J.)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2010Jones, 678 N.W.2d at 15-16 ; see also Minn. Const. art. 1 § 6. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Durfee v. Duke
green
2 sentences1995See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 538-41 , 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1914-16 , 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) (due process can be satisfied by postdeprivation remedies in which a full and meaningful hearing is available), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 , 106 S.Ct. 662 , 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986); Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111 , 84 S.Ct. 242, 245 , 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963) (state court judgment entitled to full faith and credit in other states when it is determined that questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in original court). 2. 1995See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 538-41 , 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1914-16 , 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) (due process can be satisfied by postdeprivation remedies in which a full and meaningful hearing is available), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 , 106 S.Ct. 662 , 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986); Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111 , 84 S.Ct. 242, 245 , 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963) (state court judgment entitled to full faith and credit in other states when it is determined that questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in original court). 2. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Armstrong v. Manzo
green
2 sentences1989In the context of due process requirements, it is recognized that an appropriate hearing is one conducted “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (quoting, Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965)). 1989In the context of due process requirements, it is recognized that an appropriate hearing is one conducted “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (quoting, Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965)). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences1989In the context of due process requirements, it is recognized that an appropriate hearing is one conducted “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (quoting, Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965)). 1989In the context of due process requirements, it is recognized that an appropriate hearing is one conducted “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (quoting, Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965)). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Webber
green
2 sentences1987In 1977, however, this court reinstated limitations on state appeals in Webber, supra, recognizing the necessity of preserving "a meaningful standard against which to measure the degree of harm to the state that will result from the suppression of evidence ordered after an Omnibus Hearing." 262 N.W.2d at 159 . 1987In 1977, however, this court reinstated limitations on state appeals in Web-ber, supra, recognizing the necessity of preserving “a meaningful standard against which to measure the degree of harm to the state that will result from the suppression of evidence ordered after an Omnibus Hearing.” 262 N.W.2d at 159 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.