9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kellar v. Von Holtumgreen1 sentence2017We review an award of costs and disbursements for an abuse of discretion, Kellar v. Von Holtum, 605 N.W.2d 696, 703 (Minn. 2000), superseded, on other grounds by Minn. R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Seavergreen2 sentences2015In State v. Seaver, we noted that the supreme court has emphasized “[t]he importance of clarity at each step of the analysis.” 820 N.W.2d 627, 633 (Minn.App.2012) (quotations omitted), “At each step of the analysis, the district court must determine whether the appropriate party has met its burden before the. court continues to the next step in the analysis.” Id. 2015In State v. Seaver, we noted that the supreme court has emphasized “[t]he importance of clarity at each step of the analysis.” 820 N.W.2d 627, 633 (Minn.App.2012) (quotations omitted), “At each step of the analysis, the district court must determine whether the appropriate party has met its burden before the. court continues to the next step in the analysis.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2015See State v. Moore, 699 N.W.2d 733, 738-39 (Minn. 2005) (applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which states that the meaning of general words is restricted by preceding particular words, to a jury instruction).4 Having determined that the district court committed an error that was plain, the next step in the analysis is to determine whether the error affected Bustos’s substantial rights. 2015See State v. Moore, 699 N.W.2d 733, 738-39 (Minn.2005) (applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which states that the meaning of general words is restricted by preceding particular words, to a jury instruction). 4 Having determined that the district court committed an error that was plain, the next step in the analysis is to deter mine whether the error affected Bustos’s substantial rights. | 1 | 1 |
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesotagreen1 sentence2014See Leiendecker, 848 N.W.2d at 229 (describing the process that governs analysis of an anti-SLAPP motion). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rameygreen1 sentence2014An error is plain if it is “clear” or “obvious,” meaning that it “contravenes caselaw, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Russellgreen1 sentence2013See Russell, 477 N.W.2d at 888. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hardygreen1 sentence2013Zornes argues that, under our standard from State v. Hardy, 577 N.W.2d 212, 215-16 (Minn.1998), a statement alone from investigating officers is sufficient to begin a search, if the statement is made for an investigatory purpose. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2007See id. 2007See id. | 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. Baird
green
2 sentences2015Baird, 654 N.W.2d at 113 . 2015Baird, 654 N.W.2d at 113 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Stone
green
1 sentence2009Stone, 572 N.W.2d at 730 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.