9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Maleygreen1 sentence2026We therefore hold that, to justify a district court’s inclusion of out-of-state convictions in a defendant’s criminal-history score, the state does not satisfy its burden of establishing the validity of the convictions and that the defendant was the person involved by relying solely on a PSI that does not meet the standard set forth in rule 1005. 13 In sum, we conclude that the PSI does not—as we explained in our precedential opinion in Maley—establish the facts necessary to justify the district court’s inclusion of the out-of-state convictions in Johnson’s criminal-history score “by a greater | 1 | 1 |
State v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence1992See also State v. Nelson, 399 N.W.2d 629, 633 (Minn.App.1987) (applying standard and holding that exculpatory value of the evidence was uncertain because no one viewed the tape prior to its destruction), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 17, 1987); State v. Edwards, 380 N.W.2d 503, 508-09 (Minn.App.1986) (applying standard and finding no bad faith on the part of the police and no prejudice to the defendant). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen1 sentence1992See also State v. Nelson, 399 N.W.2d 629, 633 (Minn.App.1987) (applying standard and holding that exculpatory value of the evidence was uncertain because no one viewed the tape prior to its destruction), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 17, 1987); State v. Edwards, 380 N.W.2d 503, 508-09 (Minn.App.1986) (applying standard and finding no bad faith on the part of the police and no prejudice to the defendant). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. ONE 1970 BUICK RIVIERA, SER. NO. 949870H920701green1 sentence1990See United States v. One 1970 Buick Riviera, Serial No. 949870H920701, 374 F.Supp. 277, 279 (D.Minn.1973) (construing federal forfeiture statute): While forfeiture proceedings are not of course, criminal in nature, their effect, when invoked, is to permanently deprive the owner of the forfeit property of its use. | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Pekarek v. Wilkinggreen1 sentence1986Pekarek v. Wilking, 380 N.W.2d 161, 163 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (citing Tomscak, 352 N.W.2d at 466 ). | 1 | 1 |
Olson v. Havir Manufacturing Co. of St. Paulgreen1 sentence1985Paul, 357 N.W.2d 136, 138 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). | 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. Harris
green
1 sentence1992In State v. Harris, 407 N.W.2d 456, 460 (Minn.App.1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. July 31, 1987), this court set forth factors to weigh in determining whether the destruction of evidence warrants reversal of a conviction: (1) whether the destruction was intentional; (2) the strength of the state’s case even if the evidence was available; and (3) the possible exculpatory value of the lost or destroyed evidence. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1992Id. at 278 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
City of Faribault v. One 1976 Buick LeSabre, Serial No. 4P39J6X159337
green
1 sentence1990Coley claims that the evidence presented in the forfeiture proceeding does not, as a matter of law, support the conclusion that his car was subject to forfeiture as a conveyance device under Minn.Stat. § 609.531 (1986). 1 In City of Faribault v. One 1976 Buick LeSabre, 408 N.W.2d 584 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), this court set forth the standard used for interpreting the 1986 forfeiture statute: In general forfeitures are not favored. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Palm
green
2 sentences1989In State v. Palm, 299 N.W.2d 740 (Minn.1980), this court set forth a standard for determining the admissahility of in-home, pre-ar-rest statements. 1989The court stated a determination must be made whether the defendant “reasonably believe[d] that his freedom of action was restricted in any significant way while he was being questioned.” Id. at 742 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Lee
green
2 sentences1989In State v. Lee, 282 N.W.2d 896 (Minn.1979), this court set forth a test governing the submission of lesser included offenses: The test for determining whether lesser included degrees of a crime are to be submitted to a jury is: (1) whether the evidence would reasonably support a conviction of the lesser crime, and (2) whether the evidence would also support a finding of not guilty of the greater crime. 1989Id. at 899 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Tomscak v. Tomscak
green
1 sentence1986Pekarek v. Wilking, 380 N.W.2d 161, 163 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (citing Tomscak, 352 N.W.2d at 466 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees
green
1 sentence1985In Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54 (Minn.1984), this court set forth the standard of review the WCCA should apply under the 1983 amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act: The court of appeals can no longer disregard the compensation judge’s findings and order. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Brown v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1978Quoting from Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), this court set forth factors to consider in order to determine whether the taint of an illegal arrest can be purged, rendering a confession during an illegal confinement admissible. 1978Quoting from Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), this court set forth factors to consider in order to determine whether the taint of an illegal arrest can be purged, rendering a confession during an illegal confinement admissible. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.