9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barker v. Wingogreen2 sentences1986In a footnote, the Supreme Court stated “[njothing we have said should be interpreted as disapproving a presumptive rule adopted by a court in the exercise of its *888 supervisory power which establishes a fixed time period within which cases must normally be brought.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 530 n. 29, 92 S.Ct. at 2192 n. 29. 1986In a footnote, the Supreme Court stated “[njothing we have said should be interpreted as disapproving a presumptive rule adopted by a court in the exercise of its *888 supervisory power which establishes a fixed time period within which cases must normally be brought.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 530 n. 29, 92 S.Ct. at 2192 n. 29. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Mathisongreen1 sentence2012Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); State v. Mathison, 263 N.W.2d 61, 63 (Minn.1978). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stitzelgreen1 sentence1994Barker, 407 U.S. at 530 n. 29, 92 S.Ct. at 2192 n. 29; accord State v. Stitzel, 351 N.W.2d 409, 411 (Minn.App.1984) (acknowledging that supreme court has followed Barker and promulgated Minn.R.Crim.P. 6.06 three years after Barker). | 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. Rhoads
green
1 sentence2015Although the 140-day delay in this case creates a presumption that Bland’s speedy-trial right was violated and triggers further inquiry into the remaining Barker factors, “the length of time does not, as an independent factor, provide strong support for finding a violation.” State v. Rhoads, 802 N.W.2d 794 , 806–07 (Minn. App. 2011), rev’d on other grounds, 813 N.W.2d 880 (Minn. 2012). 2. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Rhoads
green
1 sentence2015Although the 140-day delay in this case creates a presumption that Bland’s speedy-trial right was violated and triggers further inquiry into the remaining Barker factors, “the length of time does not, as an independent factor, provide strong support for finding a violation.” State v. Rhoads, 802 N.W.2d 794 , 806–07 (Minn. App. 2011), rev’d on other grounds, 813 N.W.2d 880 (Minn. 2012). 2. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2012Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); State v. Mathison, 263 N.W.2d 61, 63 (Minn.1978). 2012Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); State v. Mathison, 263 N.W.2d 61, 63 (Minn.1978). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997City of Renton, 475 U.S. at 46-47 , 106 S.Ct. at 928 . 1997City of Renton, 475 U.S. at 46-47 , 106 S.Ct. at 928 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Jones v. Wolf
green
2 sentences1982The Court further stated that a presumptive rule of majority representation, defeasible upon a showing that the identity of the local church is to be determined by some other predetermined means, would be consistent with both the first amendment and the neutral principles of law approach. 443 U.S. at 607 , 99 S.Ct. at 3027 . 1982The Court further stated that a presumptive rule of majority representation, defeasible upon a showing that the identity of the local church is to be determined by some other predetermined means, would be consistent with both the first amendment and the neutral principles of law approach. 443 U.S. at 607 , 99 S.Ct. at 3027 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Ogren v. City of Duluth
green
2 sentences1964This court discussed the proper use of a presumption in Ogren v. City of Duluth, 219 Minn. 555, 563 , 18 N. W. (2d) 535, 539 , where it said: “The presumption in question was a mere rule of evidence; it created a rebuttable presumption of causation under the circumstances mentioned that a particular occupational disease resulted from the corresponding industrial process. * * * ‡ ‡ ‡ “* * * It is well settled that a presumption is not evidence, but is rather a rule of law dictating decision on unopposed facts and shifting the burden of going forward with the evidence. 1964This court discussed the proper use of a presumption in Ogren v. City of Duluth, 219 Minn. 555, 563 , 18 N. W. (2d) 535, 539 , where it said: “The presumption in question was a mere rule of evidence; it created a rebuttable presumption of causation under the circumstances mentioned that a particular occupational disease resulted from the corresponding industrial process. * * * ‡ ‡ ‡ “* * * It is well settled that a presumption is not evidence, but is rather a rule of law dictating decision on unopposed facts and shifting the burden of going forward with the evidence. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.