Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2024 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. LeDOUXgreen2 sentences2024Procedural due process requires that a criminal defendant have an opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner.” LeDoux, 770 N.W.2d at 514 (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). 2014See State v. LeDoux, 770 N.W.2d 504, 514 (Minn.2009) (stating that, at a bail hearing, “a defendant may only call a witness if the defendant makes a persuasive offer of proof that the witness’s testimony, when considered in the context of all the other relevant available information, will lead to either release without bail or a reduction in the bail amount to a level that would result in the defendant’s release”). | 1 | 2 |
Armstrong v. Manzogreen1 sentence2024Procedural due process requires that a criminal defendant have an opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner.” LeDoux, 770 N.W.2d at 514 (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Taylor, 288 Minn. 37 , 43 n.8, 178 N.W.2d 892 , 895 n.8 (1970) (“[T]he integrity of a guilty plea as a solemn commitment would be tarnished if an accused were allowed to play games with the judicial process.” (quotations omitted)). 2016See State v. Taylor, 288 Minn. 37 , 43 n.8, 178 N.W.2d 892 , 895 n.8 (1970) (“[T]he integrity of a guilty plea as a solemn commitment would be tarnished if an accused were allowed to play games with the judicial process.” (quotations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Haukgreen2 sentences2010Id. at 399. 2010Id. at 399. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Beltowskigreen2 sentences2009State v. Beltowski, 281 Minn. 28, 32-33 , 160 N.W.2d 705, 708 (1968) (holding that because the “only action taken on [the defendant’s] case during that period [without counsel] was to increase the amount of his bail” and that the increase was not “prejudicial to defendant’s substantial rights” the defendant was not entitled to assistance of counsel). 2009State v. Beltowski, 281 Minn. 28, 32-33 , 160 N.W.2d 705, 708 (1968) (holding that because the “only action taken on [the defendant’s] case during that period [without counsel] was to increase the amount of his bail” and that the increase was not “prejudicial to defendant’s substantial rights” the defendant was not entitled to assistance of counsel). | 1 | 1 |
Dziubak v. Mottgreen1 sentence2009But, as the State points out, Le-Doux’s liberty interest at a bail hearing to determine the bail amount is less than the liberty interest at stake in a full trial where the issue of whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty is being determined. *514 For instance, while a criminal defendant has the right to an attorney at trial, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 342-45 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); Dziubak v. Mott, 503 N.W.2d 771, 772-73 (Minn.1993), a defendant does not necessarily have the right to an attorney at a bail hearing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pettgreen2 sentences2000See id. at 431-32 , 92 N.W.2d at 207 ; see also Penn. 2000See id. at 431-32 , 92 N.W.2d at 207 ; see also Penn. | 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. Martin
green
1 sentence2024Martin, 743 N.W.2d at 266 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Disciplinary Action Against Fairbairn
green
1 sentence2019The conclusion is even more incredible when one considers that we have held that lawyers who "temporarily borrowed" a client's funds for personal use but without an intent to permanently steal the funds did not have a "selfish motive." See In re Fairbairn , 802 N.W.2d 734 , 747 (Minn. 2011) (citing In re Rooney , 709 N.W.2d 263 , 272 (Minn. 2006) ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Rooney
green
1 sentence2019The conclusion is even more incredible when one considers that we have held that lawyers who "temporarily borrowed" a client's funds for personal use but without an intent to permanently steal the funds did not have a "selfish motive." See In re Fairbairn , 802 N.W.2d 734 , 747 (Minn. 2011) (citing In re Rooney , 709 N.W.2d 263 , 272 (Minn. 2006) ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Gideon v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences2009But, as the State points out, Le-Doux’s liberty interest at a bail hearing to determine the bail amount is less than the liberty interest at stake in a full trial where the issue of whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty is being determined. *514 For instance, while a criminal defendant has the right to an attorney at trial, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 342-45 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); Dziubak v. Mott, 503 N.W.2d 771, 772-73 (Minn.1993), a defendant does not necessarily have the right to an attorney at a bail hearing. 2009But, as the State points out, Le-Doux’s liberty interest at a bail hearing to determine the bail amount is less than the liberty interest at stake in a full trial where the issue of whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty is being determined. *514 For instance, while a criminal defendant has the right to an attorney at trial, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 342-45 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); Dziubak v. Mott, 503 N.W.2d 771, 772-73 (Minn.1993), a defendant does not necessarily have the right to an attorney at a bail hearing. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Rud
green
2 sentences2009The State argues that the amount of process due at a bail hearing should be guided by our decision in State v. Rud, 359 N.W.2d 573 (Minn.1984). 2009We concluded that a defendant is not permitted to call a victim in a probable cause hearing “in the hope of discovering more information” or “ ‘as a substitute for disclosure and discovery.’” Id. at 577-78 (quoting State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , 239 N.W.2d 892 (1976)) Although there may be a different liberty interest at stake in a bail hearing than at a probable cause hearing — where the ultimate question is whether there is probable cause that the defendant committed the crime — a defendant still has a similar right to due process at the bail hearing. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Carey v. Piphus
green
2 sentences2009One of the purposes of procedural due process is “to convey to the individual a feeling that the government has dealt with him fairly, as well as to minimize the risk of mistaken deprivations of protected interests.” Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 262 , 98 S.Ct. 1042 , 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978). 2009One of the purposes of procedural due process is “to convey to the individual a feeling that the government has dealt with him fairly, as well as to minimize the risk of mistaken deprivations of protected interests.” Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 262 , 98 S.Ct. 1042 , 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Florence
green
2 sentences2009We concluded that a defendant is not permitted to call a victim in a probable cause hearing “in the hope of discovering more information” or “ ‘as a substitute for disclosure and discovery.’” Id. at 577-78 (quoting State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , 239 N.W.2d 892 (1976)) Although there may be a different liberty interest at stake in a bail hearing than at a probable cause hearing — where the ultimate question is whether there is probable cause that the defendant committed the crime — a defendant still has a similar right to due process at the bail hearing. 2009We concluded that a defendant is not permitted to call a victim in a probable cause hearing “in the hope of discovering more information” or “ ‘as a substitute for disclosure and discovery.’” Id. at 577-78 (quoting State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , 239 N.W.2d 892 (1976)) Although there may be a different liberty interest at stake in a bail hearing than at a probable cause hearing — where the ultimate question is whether there is probable cause that the defendant committed the crime — a defendant still has a similar right to due process at the bail hearing. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Simmons v. United States
green
2 sentences1972Defendant relies on Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 , 88 S. Ct. 967 , 19 L. ed. 2d 1247 (1968), in his argument that this constitutes reversible error. 1972Defendant relies on Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 , 88 S. Ct. 967 , 19 L. ed. 2d 1247 (1968), in his argument that this constitutes reversible error. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.