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 1932–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Leegreen2 sentences2006In finding the omission of the instruction harmless, we indicated that the testimony was "corroborated by other evidence," and that, "[i]n closing argument, the state focused on the evidence corroborating [the accomplice's] testimony, including that of Lee, as well as evidence independently connecting Lee to the offenses." Id. at 316-17 . 2006In finding the omission of the instruction harmless, we indicated that the testimony was “corroborated by other evidence,” and that, “[i]n closing argument, the state focused on the evidence corroborating [the accomplice’s] testimony, including that of Lee, as well as evidence independently connecting Lee to the offenses.” Id. at 316-17 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Goodloegreen1 sentence2016See State v. Goodloe, 718 N.W.2d 413 , 422 n.6 (noting that failure to request a jury instruction is a forfeiture, rather than a waiver, of the right to object to the omission of that instruction on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grillergreen1 sentence2015See State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1980). | 1 | 1 |
Latourelle v. Horangreen2 sentences2009The district court’s instructions to the jury defined an emergency call as “(1) a 911 call; (2) any call for emergency medical or ambulance service; (3) or any call for assistance from a police or fire department or for other assistance needed in an emergency to avoid serious harm to person or property.” Thus, the district court’s instruction tracked the statutory definition of “emergency call” but omitted the final qualifying phrase, “and an emergency exists.” Under the plain-error analysis, we must first determine if the omission from the instruction was error. “[I]n order to fulfill [its] j 2009The district court’s instructions to the jury defined an emergency call as “(1) a 911 call; (2) any call for emergency medical or ambulance service; (3) or any call for assistance from a police or fire department or for other assistance needed in an emergency to avoid serious harm to person or property.” Thus, the district court’s instruction tracked the statutory definition of “emergency call” but omitted the final qualifying phrase, “and an emergency exists.” Under the plain-error analysis, we must first determine if the omission from the instruction was error. “[I]n order to fulfill [its] j | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stebbins v. Friend, Crosby Company
neutral
1 sentence2015And while the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “the omission of the requirement of the revenue statute is not . . . controlling,” it further commented that such an omission “is significant.” Westberg, 185 Minn. at 310 , 241 N.W. at 317 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Westberg v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2015And while the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “the omission of the requirement of the revenue statute is not . . . controlling,” it further commented that such an omission “is significant.” Westberg, 185 Minn. at 310 , 241 N.W. at 317 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Cross
green
1 sentence2009And “[d]ue process requires that every element of the offense charged must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.” Cross, 577 N.W.2d at 726 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Shoop
green
1 sentence2004Our decision that the omission of an instruction on accomplice corroboration was harmless error "similarly reflects our rejection of defendant's contention that the evidence corroborating [Her's] testimony was insufficient.” See Shoop, 441 N.W.2d at 482 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Kukowski v. Wm. Miller Scrap Iron & Metal Co.
green
1 sentence1985Noting our disapproval for such a procedure, we found the clerk’s omission of an instruction to be “crucial error.” Id. at 644 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Kline v. Minnesota
green
2 sentences1970Affirmed. * Acting as Justice of the Supreme Court by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. 6, § 2, and Minn. St. 2.724, subd. 2. 1 State v. Kline, 266 Minn. 372, 374 , 124 N. W. (2d) 416, 418 , certiorari denied, 376 U. S. 962 , 84 S. Ct. 1124 ,11 L. ed. (2d) 980, and cases cited in note 2. 2 State v. Norlander, 277 Minn. 463 , 152 N. W. (2d) 774 . 1970Affirmed. * Acting as Justice of the Supreme Court by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. 6, § 2, and Minn. St. 2.724, subd. 2. 1 State v. Kline, 266 Minn. 372, 374 , 124 N. W. (2d) 416, 418 , certiorari denied, 376 U. S. 962 , 84 S. Ct. 1124 ,11 L. ed. (2d) 980, and cases cited in note 2. 2 State v. Norlander, 277 Minn. 463 , 152 N. W. (2d) 774 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Kline
green
2 sentences1970Affirmed. * Acting as Justice of the Supreme Court by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. 6, § 2, and Minn. St. 2.724, subd. 2. 1 State v. Kline, 266 Minn. 372, 374 , 124 N. W. (2d) 416, 418 , certiorari denied, 376 U. S. 962 , 84 S. Ct. 1124 ,11 L. ed. (2d) 980, and cases cited in note 2. 2 State v. Norlander, 277 Minn. 463 , 152 N. W. (2d) 774 . 1970Affirmed. * Acting as Justice of the Supreme Court by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. 6, § 2, and Minn. St. 2.724, subd. 2. 1 State v. Kline, 266 Minn. 372, 374 , 124 N. W. (2d) 416, 418 , certiorari denied, 376 U. S. 962 , 84 S. Ct. 1124 ,11 L. ed. (2d) 980, and cases cited in note 2. 2 State v. Norlander, 277 Minn. 463 , 152 N. W. (2d) 774 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Norlander
neutral
2 sentences1970Affirmed. * Acting as Justice of the Supreme Court by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. 6, § 2, and Minn. St. 2.724, subd. 2. 1 State v. Kline, 266 Minn. 372, 374 , 124 N. W. (2d) 416, 418 , certiorari denied, 376 U. S. 962 , 84 S. Ct. 1124 ,11 L. ed. (2d) 980, and cases cited in note 2. 2 State v. Norlander, 277 Minn. 463 , 152 N. W. (2d) 774 . 1970Affirmed. * Acting as Justice of the Supreme Court by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. 6, § 2, and Minn. St. 2.724, subd. 2. 1 State v. Kline, 266 Minn. 372, 374 , 124 N. W. (2d) 416, 418 , certiorari denied, 376 U. S. 962 , 84 S. Ct. 1124 ,11 L. ed. (2d) 980, and cases cited in note 2. 2 State v. Norlander, 277 Minn. 463 , 152 N. W. (2d) 774 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Lundeen v. Nyborg
green
2 sentences1932While the omission of the requirement of the revenue statute is not here controlling, Farmers Bank v. Woolery, 156 Minn. 193 , 194 N. W. 759 ; Lundeen v. Nyborg, 161 Minn. 391 , 201 N. W. 623 , it is significant. 1932While the omission of the requirement of the revenue statute is not here controlling, Farmers Bank v. Woolery, 156 Minn. 193 , 194 N. W. 759 ; Lundeen v. Nyborg, 161 Minn. 391 , 201 N. W. 623 , it is significant. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Farmers Bank v. Woolery
neutral
2 sentences1932While the omission of the requirement of the revenue statute is not here controlling, Farmers Bank v. Woolery, 156 Minn. 193 , 194 N. W. 759 ; Lundeen v. Nyborg, 161 Minn. 391 , 201 N. W. 623 , it is significant. 1932While the omission of the requirement of the revenue statute is not here controlling, Farmers Bank v. Woolery, 156 Minn. 193 , 194 N. W. 759 ; Lundeen v. Nyborg, 161 Minn. 391 , 201 N. W. 623 , it is significant. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.