Shetsky factors (Minnesota) · Go Syfert
← Minnesota issues

Shetsky factors in Minnesota

9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2026 2 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
In re Shetskygreen
minn · 1953 · cited in 5 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2009–2024
2 sentences

2009State v. Storkamp, 656 N.W.2d 539, 542 (Minn.2003) (quoting Shetsky, 239 Minn. at 471 , 60 N.W.2d at 46 ). *913 As the district court noted in its order, Howe Bonding and Minnesota Surety did not “argue that the bond should be forfeited based on the Shetsky factors; rather, [they argue] that in reality courts do not make sureties forfeit the bond and this Court should not because they substantially complied with Minnesota General Rules of Practice 702.” On appeal, Howe Bonding and Minnesota Surety more or less argue that the good-faith efforts to locate the “real” Johnny Ray Rodriguez entitle

2009State v. Storkamp, 656 N.W.2d 539, 542 (Minn.2003) (quoting Shetsky, 239 Minn. at 471 , 60 N.W.2d at 46 ). *913 As the district court noted in its order, Howe Bonding and Minnesota Surety did not “argue that the bond should be forfeited based on the Shetsky factors; rather, [they argue] that in reality courts do not make sureties forfeit the bond and this Court should not because they substantially complied with Minnesota General Rules of Practice 702.” On appeal, Howe Bonding and Minnesota Surety more or less argue that the good-faith efforts to locate the “real” Johnny Ray Rodriguez entitle

35
State v. Storkampgreen
minn · 2003 · cited in 5 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2009–2015
2 sentences

2009State v. Storkamp, 656 N.W.2d 539, 542 (Minn.2003) (quoting Shetsky, 239 Minn. at 471 , 60 N.W.2d at 46 ). *913 As the district court noted in its order, Howe Bonding and Minnesota Surety did not “argue that the bond should be forfeited based on the Shetsky factors; rather, [they argue] that in reality courts do not make sureties forfeit the bond and this Court should not because they substantially complied with Minnesota General Rules of Practice 702.” On appeal, Howe Bonding and Minnesota Surety more or less argue that the good-faith efforts to locate the “real” Johnny Ray Rodriguez entitle

2009State v. Storkamp, 656 N.W.2d 539, 542 (Minn.2003) (quoting Shetsky, 239 Minn. at 471 , 60 N.W.2d at 46 ). *913 As the district court noted in its order, Howe Bonding and Minnesota Surety did not “argue that the bond should be forfeited based on the Shetsky factors; rather, [they argue] that in reality courts do not make sureties forfeit the bond and this Court should not because they substantially complied with Minnesota General Rules of Practice 702.” On appeal, Howe Bonding and Minnesota Surety more or less argue that the good-faith efforts to locate the “real” Johnny Ray Rodriguez entitle

35
Farsdale v. Martinezgreen
minnctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See Farsdale v. Martinez, 586 N.W.2d 423, 425 (Minn. App. 1998) (applying the Shetsky factors to determine whether a district court abused its discretion in a bond-forfeiture decision).

2015See Farsdale v. Martinez, 586 N.W.2d 423, 425 (Minn. App. 1998) (applying the Shetsky factors to determine whether a district court abused its discretion in a bond-forfeiture decision).

11
Marriage of Wibbens v. Wibbensgreen
minnctapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See Wibbens v. Wibbens, 379 N.W.2d 225, 227 (Minn. App. 1985) (declining to remand for de minimis technical error).

2015See Wibbens v. Wibbens, 379 N.W.2d 225, 227 (Minn. App. 1985) (declining to remand for de minimis technical error).

11
State v. Vanggreen
minnctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014Purpose of Bail Bail is not to be treated as a way to punish a surety, Storkamp, 656 N.W.2d at 541-42 , and one purpose of bail “is to encourage sureties to locate, arrest, and return defaulting defendants to the authorities to facilitate the timely administration of justice,” State v. Vang, 763 N.W.2d 354, 358 (Minn. App. 2009).

2014Purpose of Bail Bail is not to be treated as a way to punish a surety, Storkamp, 656 N.W.2d at 541-42 , and one purpose of bail “is to encourage sureties to locate, arrest, and return defaulting defendants to the authorities to facilitate the timely administration of justice,” State v. Vang, 763 N.W.2d 354, 358 (Minn. App. 2009).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Askland green
minn · 2010
2 sentences

2024“A district court abuses its discretion when it bases its conclusions on an erroneous view of the law.” Id. 3 When determining whether to reinstate a bond, a district court should consider four factors, known as the Shetsky factors: (1) the purpose of bail, the civil nature of the proceedings, and the cause, purpose and length of a defendant’s absence; (2) the good faith of the bond company as measured by the fault or willfulness of the defendant; (3) the good-faith efforts of the bond company to apprehend and produce the defendant; and (4) any prejudice to the [s]tate in its administration of

2024“A district court abuses its discretion when it bases its conclusions on an erroneous view of the law.” Id. 3 When determining whether to reinstate a bond, a district court should consider four factors, known as the Shetsky factors: (1) the purpose of bail, the civil nature of the proceedings, and the cause, purpose and length of a defendant’s absence; (2) the good faith of the bond company as measured by the fault or willfulness of the defendant; (3) the good-faith efforts of the bond company to apprehend and produce the defendant; and (4) any prejudice to the [s]tate in its administration of

32016–2026

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MN § Minn. Stat. § 629.59 (8) MN § Minn. Stat. § 480A.08 (4)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check