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 1981–2025 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. Piercegreen2 sentences2025Id. 1985State v. Schinzing, 342 N.W.2d 105, 109 (Minn.1983); State v. Pierce, 347 N.W.2d 829, 833 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). 1 Having seen unusual, suspicious movements of appellant and Mangen, and having already found a razor blade in Man-gen’s jacket pocket, as well as pills and white powder, Meyers could lawfully perform a pat-down search of appellant for weapons. | 1 | 2 |
Scott v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1981See Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 , 98 S.Ct. 1717 , 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978); State v. Veigel, 304 N.W.2d 900 (Minn.1981) (upholding search of glove compartment on theory that even if, as the trial court ruled, there was not probable cause to search for an open-bottle violation, there was probable cause to search for drugs). 2. 1981See Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 , 98 S.Ct. 1717 , 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978); State v. Veigel, 304 N.W.2d 900 (Minn.1981) (upholding search of glove compartment on theory that even if, as the trial court ruled, there was not probable cause to search for an open-bottle violation, there was probable cause to search for drugs). 2. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Tildahlgreen1 sentence2015To the extent that we know the relevant facts, they are fairly similar to the facts of City of Moorhead v. Miller, 295 N.W.2d 548 (Minn. 1980), in which the defendant was convicted of DWI and an open-bottle violation, which led the supreme court to comment, in affirming the trial court, that “the two offenses must be deemed to have arisen from the same behavioral incident.” Id. at 550 ; see also State v. Tildahl, 540 N.W.2d 514, 515 (Minn. 1995) (summarily holding that district court erred by imposing two sentences on convictions of aggravated driving and open-bottle violation). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schinzinggreen1 sentence1985State v. Schinzing, 342 N.W.2d 105, 109 (Minn.1983); State v. Pierce, 347 N.W.2d 829, 833 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). 1 Having seen unusual, suspicious movements of appellant and Mangen, and having already found a razor blade in Man-gen’s jacket pocket, as well as pills and white powder, Meyers could lawfully perform a pat-down search of appellant for weapons. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Slifka
green
2 sentences2009Slifka, 256 N.W.2d at 91 . 5 . 1982State v. Slifka, 256 N.W.2d 90 (Minn.1977). | 2 | 1982–2009 |
State v. Veigel
green
2 sentences1982State v. Veigel, 304 N.W.2d 900 (Minn.1981); State v. Johnson, 277 N.W.2d 346 (Minn.1979); State v. Ellanson, 293 Minn. 490 , 198 N.W.2d 136 (1972). 1981See Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 , 98 S.Ct. 1717 , 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978); State v. Veigel, 304 N.W.2d 900 (Minn.1981) (upholding search of glove compartment on theory that even if, as the trial court ruled, there was not probable cause to search for an open-bottle violation, there was probable cause to search for drugs). 2. | 2 | 1981–1982 |
State v. Butcher
green
1 sentence2015The state relies on Clement and State v. Butcher, 563 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 1997), in support of its argument that Guscette’s two offenses did not arise from a single behavioral incident. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
City of Moorhead v. Miller
green
2 sentences2015To the extent that we know the relevant facts, they are fairly similar to the facts of City of Moorhead v. Miller, 295 N.W.2d 548 (Minn. 1980), in which the defendant was convicted of DWI and an open-bottle violation, which led the supreme court to comment, in affirming the trial court, that “the two offenses must be deemed to have arisen from the same behavioral incident.” Id. at 550 ; see also State v. Tildahl, 540 N.W.2d 514, 515 (Minn. 1995) (summarily holding that district court erred by imposing two sentences on convictions of aggravated driving and open-bottle violation). 2015To the extent that we know the relevant facts, they are fairly similar to the facts of City of Moorhead v. Miller, 295 N.W.2d 548 (Minn. 1980), in which the defendant was convicted of DWI and an open-bottle violation, which led the supreme court to comment, in affirming the trial court, that “the two offenses must be deemed to have arisen from the same behavioral incident.” Id. at 550 ; see also State v. Tildahl, 540 N.W.2d 514, 515 (Minn. 1995) (summarily holding that district court erred by imposing two sentences on convictions of aggravated driving and open-bottle violation). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Antl v. State, Department of Public Safety
green
1 sentence1987Id. at 243 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Marben v. State, Department of Public Safety
green
1 sentence1984Marben v. State, Department of Public Safety, 294 N.W.2d 697 (Minn.1980); State v. Zuehlke, 320 N.W.2d 79 (Minn.Í982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Dax
green
2 sentences1984Under the approach that we have taken in applying section 629.34 — see State v. Dax, 290 Minn. 546 , 188 N.W.2d 422 (1971) — the open bottle violation was committed in the officer’s presence. 1984Under the approach that we have taken in applying section 629.34 — see State v. Dax, 290 Minn. 546 , 188 N.W.2d 422 (1971) — the open bottle violation was committed in the officer’s presence. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Zuehlke
green
1 sentence1984Marben v. State, Department of Public Safety, 294 N.W.2d 697 (Minn.1980); State v. Zuehlke, 320 N.W.2d 79 (Minn.Í982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Ellanson
green
2 sentences1982State v. Veigel, 304 N.W.2d 900 (Minn.1981); State v. Johnson, 277 N.W.2d 346 (Minn.1979); State v. Ellanson, 293 Minn. 490 , 198 N.W.2d 136 (1972). 1982State v. Veigel, 304 N.W.2d 900 (Minn.1981); State v. Johnson, 277 N.W.2d 346 (Minn.1979); State v. Ellanson, 293 Minn. 490 , 198 N.W.2d 136 (1972). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1982Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 , 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d (1968); 3 W. 1982Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 , 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d (1968); 3 W. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Adams v. Williams
green
2 sentences1982Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 , 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d (1968); 3 W. 1982Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 , 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d (1968); 3 W. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1982State v. Veigel, 304 N.W.2d 900 (Minn.1981); State v. Johnson, 277 N.W.2d 346 (Minn.1979); State v. Ellanson, 293 Minn. 490 , 198 N.W.2d 136 (1972). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
United States v. Chadwick
red
2 sentences1981The key case with respect to the second issue is Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 , 99 S.Ct. 2586 , 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979), applying United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 , 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977) to the warrantless search of luggage taken from an automobile which was lawfully stopped and holding that such luggage may not generally be searched without a warrant, unless the search falls under an otherwise established exception to the warrant requirements. 1981The key case with respect to the second issue is Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 , 99 S.Ct. 2586 , 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979), applying United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 , 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977) to the warrantless search of luggage taken from an automobile which was lawfully stopped and holding that such luggage may not generally be searched without a warrant, unless the search falls under an otherwise established exception to the warrant requirements. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Arkansas v. Sanders
red
2 sentences1981The key case with respect to the second issue is Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 , 99 S.Ct. 2586 , 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979), applying United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 , 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977) to the warrantless search of luggage taken from an automobile which was lawfully stopped and holding that such luggage may not generally be searched without a warrant, unless the search falls under an otherwise established exception to the warrant requirements. 1981The key case with respect to the second issue is Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 , 99 S.Ct. 2586 , 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979), applying United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 , 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977) to the warrantless search of luggage taken from an automobile which was lawfully stopped and holding that such luggage may not generally be searched without a warrant, unless the search falls under an otherwise established exception to the warrant requirements. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.