9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Griffin v. Californiagreen2 sentences1987Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 [ 85 S.Ct. 1229, 1233 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 ] (1965). 1987Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 [ 85 S.Ct. 1229, 1233 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 ] (1965). | 1 | 2 |
Daniel J. Bowles v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2024But Foster asserts that “[i]t is wrong to have the same rule for prosecutors and defendants because they are legally different in every relevant way.” Foster argues that “allowing a defendant to call an invoking witness to the stand is the better rule because it protects the witness’s and the defendant’s constitutional rights.” Although it does not appear that the supreme court has considered the specific arguments that Foster makes in this case as support for his proposed rule, that rule is inconsistent with the supreme court’s reasoning in Moose—as well as the majority of foreign jurisdictio | 1 | 1 |
Illinois v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2016A police officer may rely on a person’s expression of consent if “the facts available to the officer at the moment warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the consenting party had authority over the premises,” Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188 , 110 S.Ct. 2793, 2801 , 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) (quotation omitted). 2016A police officer may rely on a person’s expression of consent if “the facts available to the officer at the moment warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the consenting party had authority over the premises,” Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188 , 110 S.Ct. 2793, 2801 , 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Butler v. McKellargreen2 sentences2012The mere fact that “a court says that its decision is within the 'logical compass' of an earlier decision, or indeed that it is 'controlled' by a prior decision, is not conclusive for purposes of deciding whether the current decision is a 'new rule' under Teague." Butler, 494 U.S. at 415, 110 S.Ct. 1212 . . 2012The mere fact that “a court says that its decision is within the 'logical compass' of an earlier decision, or indeed that it is 'controlled' by a prior decision, is not conclusive for purposes of deciding whether the current decision is a 'new rule' under Teague." Butler, 494 U.S. at 415, 110 S.Ct. 1212 . . | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Welfare of J.W.green1 sentence1999In fact, the court fails to explain the difference between the state's legitimate interest in treatment in this case and, for example, the state's interest in rooting out corruption in Cunningham , or for that matter, the state's interest in determining whether the accused in a murder case committed the crime. [6] Murphy, 465 U.S. at 434 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 (quoting Cunningham, 431 U.S. at 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 ). [7] See Asherman, 957 F.2d at 989 (Cardamone, J., dissenting). [8] 415 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Minn.1987). [9] 442 U.S. 1, 9 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979) (discussing the "distinction | 1 | 1 |
Steven M. Asherman v. Larry Meachum, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correctiongreen2 sentences1999Id. at 981 ., Further, the court determined that the inmate could not have been ordered to waive his self-incrimination privilege, id. (citing Gard-ner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 279 , 88 S.Ct. 1913 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968)), and that the "state may not take adverse action in response to an invocation of the privilege in response to questions not reasonably related to the exercise of state authority." Id. (citing Slochower v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 350 U.S. 551, 558-59 , 76 S.Ct. 637 , 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956)). .See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 ( 1999Id. at 981 ., Further, the court determined that the inmate could not have been ordered to waive his self-incrimination privilege, id. (citing Gard-ner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 279 , 88 S.Ct. 1913 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968)), and that the "state may not take adverse action in response to an invocation of the privilege in response to questions not reasonably related to the exercise of state authority." Id. (citing Slochower v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 350 U.S. 551, 558-59 , 76 S.Ct. 637 , 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956)). .See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 ( | 1 | 1 |
Fleet Bank of Maine v. Wilsongreen1 sentence1992See Fleet Bank of Maine v. Wilson, 780 F.Supp. 841, 844 (D.Me.1991) (“The only element of fault necessary to the invocation of the doctrine is the borrower’s failure to reduce the agreement to writing.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Michigan v. Mosley
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 104 , 96 S.Ct. 321 . 2018Id. at 104 , 96 S.Ct. 321 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Stringer v. Black
green
2 sentences2012The question , becomes "admittedly” more difficult when the Court applies a prior decision "in a novel setting, thereby extending the precedent.” Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222, 228 , 112 S.Ct. 1130 , 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992) (recognizing that "[t]he interests in finality, predictability, and comity underlying our new rule jurisprudence may be undermined to an equal degree by the invocation of a rule that was not dictated by precedent as by the application of an old rule in a manner that was not dictated by precedent”). 2012The question , becomes "admittedly” more difficult when the Court applies a prior decision "in a novel setting, thereby extending the precedent.” Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222, 228 , 112 S.Ct. 1130 , 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992) (recognizing that "[t]he interests in finality, predictability, and comity underlying our new rule jurisprudence may be undermined to an equal degree by the invocation of a rule that was not dictated by precedent as by the application of an old rule in a manner that was not dictated by precedent”). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Minnesota v. Murphy
green
2 sentences1999In fact, the court fails to explain the difference between the state's legitimate interest in treatment in this case and, for example, the state's interest in rooting out corruption in Cunningham , or for that matter, the state's interest in determining whether the accused in a murder case committed the crime. [6] Murphy, 465 U.S. at 434 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 (quoting Cunningham, 431 U.S. at 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 ). [7] See Asherman, 957 F.2d at 989 (Cardamone, J., dissenting). [8] 415 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Minn.1987). [9] 442 U.S. 1, 9 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979) (discussing the "distinction 1999In fact, the court fails to explain the difference between the state's legitimate interest in treatment in this case and, for example, the state's interest in rooting out corruption in Cunningham , or for that matter, the state's interest in determining whether the accused in a murder case committed the crime. [6] Murphy, 465 U.S. at 434 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 (quoting Cunningham, 431 U.S. at 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 ). [7] See Asherman, 957 F.2d at 989 (Cardamone, J., dissenting). [8] 415 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Minn.1987). [9] 442 U.S. 1, 9 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979) (discussing the "distinction | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York City
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 981 ., Further, the court determined that the inmate could not have been ordered to waive his self-incrimination privilege, id. (citing Gard-ner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 279 , 88 S.Ct. 1913 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968)), and that the "state may not take adverse action in response to an invocation of the privilege in response to questions not reasonably related to the exercise of state authority." Id. (citing Slochower v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 350 U.S. 551, 558-59 , 76 S.Ct. 637 , 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956)). .See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 ( 1999Id. at 981 ., Further, the court determined that the inmate could not have been ordered to waive his self-incrimination privilege, id. (citing Gard-ner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 279 , 88 S.Ct. 1913 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968)), and that the "state may not take adverse action in response to an invocation of the privilege in response to questions not reasonably related to the exercise of state authority." Id. (citing Slochower v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 350 U.S. 551, 558-59 , 76 S.Ct. 637 , 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956)). .See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 ( | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Gardner v. Broderick
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 981 ., Further, the court determined that the inmate could not have been ordered to waive his self-incrimination privilege, id. (citing Gard-ner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 279 , 88 S.Ct. 1913 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968)), and that the "state may not take adverse action in response to an invocation of the privilege in response to questions not reasonably related to the exercise of state authority." Id. (citing Slochower v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 350 U.S. 551, 558-59 , 76 S.Ct. 637 , 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956)). .See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 ( 1999Id. at 981 ., Further, the court determined that the inmate could not have been ordered to waive his self-incrimination privilege, id. (citing Gard-ner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 279 , 88 S.Ct. 1913 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968)), and that the "state may not take adverse action in response to an invocation of the privilege in response to questions not reasonably related to the exercise of state authority." Id. (citing Slochower v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 350 U.S. 551, 558-59 , 76 S.Ct. 637 , 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956)). .See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 ( | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Lefkowitz v. Cunningham
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 981 ., Further, the court determined that the inmate could not have been ordered to waive his self-incrimination privilege, id. (citing Gard-ner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 279 , 88 S.Ct. 1913 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968)), and that the "state may not take adverse action in response to an invocation of the privilege in response to questions not reasonably related to the exercise of state authority." Id. (citing Slochower v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 350 U.S. 551, 558-59 , 76 S.Ct. 637 , 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956)). .See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 ( 1999Id. at 981 ., Further, the court determined that the inmate could not have been ordered to waive his self-incrimination privilege, id. (citing Gard-ner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 279 , 88 S.Ct. 1913 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968)), and that the "state may not take adverse action in response to an invocation of the privilege in response to questions not reasonably related to the exercise of state authority." Id. (citing Slochower v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 350 U.S. 551, 558-59 , 76 S.Ct. 637 , 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956)). .See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 ( | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex
green
2 sentences1999In fact, the court fails to explain the difference between the state's legitimate interest in treatment in this case and, for example, the state's interest in rooting out corruption in Cunningham , or for that matter, the state's interest in determining whether the accused in a murder case committed the crime. [6] Murphy, 465 U.S. at 434 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 (quoting Cunningham, 431 U.S. at 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 ). [7] See Asherman, 957 F.2d at 989 (Cardamone, J., dissenting). [8] 415 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Minn.1987). [9] 442 U.S. 1, 9 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979) (discussing the "distinction 1999In fact, the court fails to explain the difference between the state's legitimate interest in treatment in this case and, for example, the state's interest in rooting out corruption in Cunningham , or for that matter, the state's interest in determining whether the accused in a murder case committed the crime. [6] Murphy, 465 U.S. at 434 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 (quoting Cunningham, 431 U.S. at 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 ). [7] See Asherman, 957 F.2d at 989 (Cardamone, J., dissenting). [8] 415 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Minn.1987). [9] 442 U.S. 1, 9 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979) (discussing the "distinction | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Missouri Ex Rel. Southern Railway Co. v. Mayfield
green
2 sentences1956Co. v. Mayfield, 340 U.S. 1 , 71 S. Ct. 1 , 95 L. ed. 3. *230 Following the Douglas, Mayfield, and Johnson cases, we hold that application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not contravene federal rights granted to plaintiff under the Federal Employers' Liability Act and that the invocation of that doctrine is not limited by the artificial barrier of two intervening state lines. 1956Co. v. Mayfield, 340 U.S. 1 , 71 S. Ct. 1 , 95 L. ed. 3. *230 Following the Douglas, Mayfield, and Johnson cases, we hold that application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not contravene federal rights granted to plaintiff under the Federal Employers' Liability Act and that the invocation of that doctrine is not limited by the artificial barrier of two intervening state lines. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.