9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1926–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Reingreen2 sentences2004See Rein, 477 N.W.2d at 719 . 2000See Rein, 477 N.W.2d at 719: A district court cannot “edit” a conversation involving a defendant. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Greenleafgreen2 sentences2006Greenleaf, 591 N.W.2d at 505 . 2006See State v. Greenleaf, 591 N.W.2d 488, 505 (Minn.1999). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Dobbinsgreen1 sentence2015We have already held that any misconduct or error when considered in the context of the trial as a whole was not so serious or prejudicial that Knotz’s right to a fair trial was impaired. “[T]he Constitution guarantees a fair trial—not a perfect or error-free trial.” State v. Dobbins, 725 N.W.2d 492, 513 (Minn. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2012A criminal defendant has a fundamental due-process right to explain her conduct to a jury, State v. Jacobson, 697 N.W.2d 610, 616 (Minn.2005) (quoting State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745, 751 (Minn.1984)), “even if the explanation is not a perfect defense,” State v. Thompson, 617 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Minn.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Richardsongreen1 sentence2012This right “does not mean that the defendant’s testimony is unrestricted” because the criminal defendant must still “comply with the evidentiary rules.” State v. Richardson, 670 N.W.2d 267, 282 (Minn.2003). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brechongreen1 sentence2012A criminal defendant has a fundamental due-process right to explain her conduct to a jury, State v. Jacobson, 697 N.W.2d 610, 616 (Minn.2005) (quoting State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745, 751 (Minn.1984)), “even if the explanation is not a perfect defense,” State v. Thompson, 617 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Minn.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacobsongreen1 sentence2012A criminal defendant has a fundamental due-process right to explain her conduct to a jury, State v. Jacobson, 697 N.W.2d 610, 616 (Minn.2005) (quoting State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745, 751 (Minn.1984)), “even if the explanation is not a perfect defense,” State v. Thompson, 617 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Minn.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Danforth v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Danforth v. State, 761 N.W.2d 493, 498-99 (Minn.2009) (stating that “Teague may not be a perfect rule, but we believe it is preferable to the alternatives”). | 1 | 1 |
Robinette v. Pricegreen2 sentences2006Twenty-one years later, the supreme court declared that “[i]t is the imperative duty of a sheriff to execute the process and orders of a court of competent jurisdiction.” Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 525 , 8 N.W.2d 800, 804 (1943). 2006Twenty-one years later, the supreme court declared that “[i]t is the imperative duty of a sheriff to execute the process and orders of a court of competent jurisdiction.” Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 525 , 8 N.W.2d 800, 804 (1943). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whitney v. Welnitz
green
2 sentences2006The court concluded that “[wjhere the writ appears regular in all respects the officer is not required to make inquiry into the sufficiency of the prior proceedings” and the officer therefore has “a full and perfect defense to the action.” Id. at 166 , 190 N.W. at 58 . 2006The court concluded that “[wjhere the writ appears regular in all respects the officer is not required to make inquiry into the sufficiency of the prior proceedings” and the officer therefore has “a full and perfect defense to the action.” Id. at 166 , 190 N.W. at 58 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Williams v. Stewart
neutral
1 sentence1926It is perhaps true that Counsel was mistaken, for there appears little or no difference between the agreement in question and the one in Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 , so far as affected by the statute of frauds. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.