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 1988–2025 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. Turnipseedgreen2 sentences2015In State v. Gassler, the supreme court emphasized that it had explicitly approved the pattern jury instruction as an appropriate instruction on circumstantial evidence. 505 N.W.2d 62, 68 (Minn. 2007) (citing State v. Turnipseed, 297 N.W.2d 308, 312 (Minn. 1980)). 1993See State v. Turnipseed, 297 N.W.2d 308, 312 (Minn.1980); State v. Hardy, 303 N.W.2d 57 (Minn.1981). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Webstergreen1 sentence2025See State v. Webster, 894 N.W.2d 782, 787 (Minn. 2017) (concluding that the district court did not plainly err by giving a jury instruction because the instruction was consistent with the pattern instruction and did “not contravene existing case law”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Radkegreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., State v. Radke, 821 N.W.2d 316, 327 (Minn. 2012); State v. Hare, 575 N.W.2d 828, 832-33 (Minn. 1998); State v. Edwards, 343 N.W.2d 269, 277 (Minn. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Haregreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., State v. Radke, 821 N.W.2d 316, 327 (Minn. 2012); State v. Hare, 575 N.W.2d 828, 832-33 (Minn. 1998); State v. Edwards, 343 N.W.2d 269, 277 (Minn. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., State v. Radke, 821 N.W.2d 316, 327 (Minn. 2012); State v. Hare, 575 N.W.2d 828, 832-33 (Minn. 1998); State v. Edwards, 343 N.W.2d 269, 277 (Minn. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gasslergreen1 sentence2015In State v. Gassler, the supreme court emphasized that it had explicitly approved the pattern jury instruction as an appropriate instruction on circumstantial evidence. 505 N.W.2d 62, 68 (Minn. 2007) (citing State v. Turnipseed, 297 N.W.2d 308, 312 (Minn. 1980)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1988See State v. Harris, 405 N.W.2d 224, 231 (Minn.1987). [2] The grant of a new trial is the appropriate measure when fundamental error has occurred. 1988See State v. Harris, 405 N.W.2d 224, 231 (Minn.1987). . | 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. Weltz
green
2 sentences2024Still, the supreme court rejected Coleman’s argument that the error required a new trial, reasoning that there is no plain error without prejudice and that Coleman “failed to establish that the error affected his substantial rights.” Id. 2024The supreme court explained that the pattern instruction improperly “attaches the recklessness component to the act itself, and allows for conviction based on an impermissibly low risk of death.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Abramski v. United States
green
2 sentences2017But such an approach to uncovering the law, just like applying the rule of lenity first, is not “appropriate.” See Abramski v. United States, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2259 , 2272 n.10, 189 L.Ed.2d 262 (2014) (declining to apply the rule of lenity when “context, structure, history, and purpose” resolved all ambiguity, because the simple'fact that the “statute’s text, taken alone, permits a narrower construction” is “not the appropriate test” for when to apply the rule), CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the district court for further 2017But such an approach to uncovering the law, just like applying the rule of lenity first, is not “appropriate.” See Abramski v. United States, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2259 , 2272 n.10, 189 L.Ed.2d 262 (2014) (declining to apply the rule of lenity when “context, structure, history, and purpose” resolved all ambiguity, because the simple'fact that the “statute’s text, taken alone, permits a narrower construction” is “not the appropriate test” for when to apply the rule), CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the district court for further | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2016Third, he claims that the district court erred when it instructed the -jury on the reasonable-doubt standard using language we ¡approved in State v. Smith, 674 N.W.2d 398 (Minn.2004), rather than using the pattern instruction from the Criminal Jury Instruction Guide. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Olmscheid
green
1 sentence2007Olmscheid, 492 N.W.2d at 265 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Marquardt
green
1 sentence1994In State v. Marquardt, 496 N.W.2d 806 , order denying petition for review (Minn.1993), aff'g State v. Marquardt, No. C5-92-985 (Minn.App. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Hardy
green
1 sentence1993See State v. Turnipseed, 297 N.W.2d 308, 312 (Minn.1980); State v. Hardy, 303 N.W.2d 57 (Minn.1981). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.