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 2008–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Missouri v. McNeelygreen2 sentences2024While Lindquist’s appeal was pending, however, the United States Supreme Court decided Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), which overturned the single-factor exigency analysis in Shriner and Netland. 2016The Minnesota court further noted that “[w]e later extended the single-factor-exigency analysis from Shriner to 7 any DWI offense.” Id. at 878 (quoting State v. Netland, 762 N.W.2d 202, 213 (Minn. 2009), abrogated in part by McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 ). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Netlandgreen2 sentences2016The Minnesota court further noted that “[w]e later extended the single-factor-exigency analysis from Shriner to 7 any DWI offense.” Id. at 878 (quoting State v. Netland, 762 N.W.2d 202, 213 (Minn. 2009), abrogated in part by McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 ). 2015State v. Netland, 762 N.W.2d 202, 213 (Minn.2009), abrogated in part by McNeely, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1552 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2015Id. at 567, 572 ; see also id. at 573 (holding that Minnesota implied consent law is constitutional). 2015Id. at 567, 572 ; see also id. at 573 (holding that Minnesota implied consent law is constitutional). | 1 | 1 |
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr.green1 sentence2015Bernard, 859 N.W.2d at 772 (“McNeely does not foreclose our decision regarding the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Graygreen1 sentence2014See 456 N.W.2d 251, 256 (Minn. 1990) (establishing a single-factor test for exigent circumstances); State v. Paul, 548 N.W.2d 260, 264 (Minn. 1996) (recognizing “imminent destruction of evidence” as a factor that may support an exigent- circumstances finding). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Paulgreen1 sentence2014See 456 N.W.2d 251, 256 (Minn. 1990) (establishing a single-factor test for exigent circumstances); State v. Paul, 548 N.W.2d 260, 264 (Minn. 1996) (recognizing “imminent destruction of evidence” as a factor that may support an exigent- circumstances finding). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2008Id. at 776, 778-79 . 2008Id. at 776, 778-79 . | 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 of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
green
2 sentences2024Lindquist, 869 N.W.2d at 866 . 2024Id. at 865 (citing Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013)); see McNeely, 569 U.S. at 145 (“[E]xigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.”). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
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.