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 1991–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marriage of Rutten v. Ruttengreen1 sentence2017See Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47, 51 (Minn. 1984) (“The focus in granting [parenting time] is primarily the best interests of the children.”); Schisel v. Schisel, 762 N.W.2d 265, 270 (Minn.App. 2009) (“The bedrock principle underlying any decision affecting the custody of minor children is that their best interests must be protected and fostered.”); Clark v. Clark, 346 N.W.2d 383, 385 (Minn.App. 1984) (“[T]he ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest of the child.”), review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984). | 1 | 1 |
Schisel v. Schiselgreen1 sentence2017See Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47, 51 (Minn. 1984) (“The focus in granting [parenting time] is primarily the best interests of the children.”); Schisel v. Schisel, 762 N.W.2d 265, 270 (Minn.App. 2009) (“The bedrock principle underlying any decision affecting the custody of minor children is that their best interests must be protected and fostered.”); Clark v. Clark, 346 N.W.2d 383, 385 (Minn.App. 1984) (“[T]he ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest of the child.”), review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Clark v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2017See Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47, 51 (Minn. 1984) (“The focus in granting [parenting time] is primarily the best interests of the children.”); Schisel v. Schisel, 762 N.W.2d 265, 270 (Minn.App. 2009) (“The bedrock principle underlying any decision affecting the custody of minor children is that their best interests must be protected and fostered.”); Clark v. Clark, 346 N.W.2d 383, 385 (Minn.App. 1984) (“[T]he ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest of the child.”), review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984). | 1 | 1 |
Motorsports Racing Plus, Inc. v. Arctic Cat Sales, Inc.green1 sentence2013It is a bedrock principle of contract interpretation that our court’s primary goal is to “determine and enforce the intent of the parties.” Motorsports Racing Plus, Inc. v. Arctic Cat Sales, Inc., 666 N.W.2d 320, 323 (Minn.2003). | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of a Grand Jury Subpoena Directed to Dakota Cheese, Inc. United States of America v. Dakota Cheese, Inc.green2 sentences2010Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 , 863 & n. 11, 108 S.Ct. 2194 , 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988); see also Cotto v. United States, 993 F.2d 274, 278 (1st Cir.1993) ("[P]laintiffs' attempt to garb their motion in the raiment of clause (6) runs aground on the bedrock principle that clause (6) may not be used as a vehicle for circumventing clauses (1) through (5)."); Matter of Dakota Cheese, 923 F.2d 576, 577 (8th Cir.1991) (explaining that, because motion was based on newly discovered evidence, it was governed by the 1-year limitation period of Rule 60(b)(2) and concluding the parties could not characteri 2010Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 , 863 & n. 11, 108 S.Ct. 2194 , 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988); see also Cotto v. United States, 993 F.2d 274, 278 (1st Cir.1993) (“[PJlaintiffs’ attempt to garb their motion in the raiment of clause (6) runs aground on the bedrock principle that clause (6) may not be used as a vehicle for circumventing clauses (1) through (5).”); Matter of Dakota Cheese, 923 F.2d 576, 577 (8th Cir.1991) (explaining that, because motion was based on newly discovered evidence, it was governed by the 1-year limitation period of Rule 60(b)(2) and concluding the parties could not characteri | 1 | 1 |
Evelyn Cotto and Edwin Torres, Etc. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2010Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 , 863 & n. 11, 108 S.Ct. 2194 , 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988); see also Cotto v. United States, 993 F.2d 274, 278 (1st Cir.1993) ("[P]laintiffs' attempt to garb their motion in the raiment of clause (6) runs aground on the bedrock principle that clause (6) may not be used as a vehicle for circumventing clauses (1) through (5)."); Matter of Dakota Cheese, 923 F.2d 576, 577 (8th Cir.1991) (explaining that, because motion was based on newly discovered evidence, it was governed by the 1-year limitation period of Rule 60(b)(2) and concluding the parties could not characteri 2010Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 , 863 & n. 11, 108 S.Ct. 2194 , 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988); see also Cotto v. United States, 993 F.2d 274, 278 (1st Cir.1993) (“[PJlaintiffs’ attempt to garb their motion in the raiment of clause (6) runs aground on the bedrock principle that clause (6) may not be used as a vehicle for circumventing clauses (1) through (5).”); Matter of Dakota Cheese, 923 F.2d 576, 577 (8th Cir.1991) (explaining that, because motion was based on newly discovered evidence, it was governed by the 1-year limitation period of Rule 60(b)(2) and concluding the parties could not characteri | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2008The historical importance of the right to confrontation was made even clearer by the right’s recognition as a bedrock principle applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment, Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965), and the reaffirmation of the right’s precedence over considerations of reliability, as well as the established hearsay exceptions, Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68-69 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . 2008The historical importance of the right to confrontation was made even clearer by the right’s recognition as a bedrock principle applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment, Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965), and the reaffirmation of the right’s precedence over considerations of reliability, as well as the established hearsay exceptions, Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68-69 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . | 2 | 2008–2019 |
Texas v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1994As this court stated in its decision in Matter of Welfare of R.A.V., 464 N.W.2d 507 (Minn.1991), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2538 , 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992): “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Id. at 511 (citing Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 , 109 S.Ct. 2533 , 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)). 1994As this court stated in its decision in Matter of Welfare of R.A.V., 464 N.W.2d 507 (Minn.1991), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2538 , 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992): “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Id. at 511 (citing Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 , 109 S.Ct. 2533 , 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)). | 2 | 1991–1994 |
State v. Dorsey
green
1 sentence2025Even though we have acknowledged that adopting a more flexible standard may result in a “less distasteful outcome” in some cases, we have said that our failure to apply this rule uniformly “would permanently compromise the bedrock principle in our criminal justice system that judges may not investigate or rely upon extra-record knowledge when sitting as the finder of fact.” Dorsey, 701 N.W.2d at 251 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.
green
2 sentences2010Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 , 863 & n. 11, 108 S.Ct. 2194 , 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988); see also Cotto v. United States, 993 F.2d 274, 278 (1st Cir.1993) (“[PJlaintiffs’ attempt to garb their motion in the raiment of clause (6) runs aground on the bedrock principle that clause (6) may not be used as a vehicle for circumventing clauses (1) through (5).”); Matter of Dakota Cheese, 923 F.2d 576, 577 (8th Cir.1991) (explaining that, because motion was based on newly discovered evidence, it was governed by the 1-year limitation period of Rule 60(b)(2) and concluding the parties could not characteri 2010Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 , 863 & n. 11, 108 S.Ct. 2194 , 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988); see also Cotto v. United States, 993 F.2d 274, 278 (1st Cir.1993) (“[PJlaintiffs’ attempt to garb their motion in the raiment of clause (6) runs aground on the bedrock principle that clause (6) may not be used as a vehicle for circumventing clauses (1) through (5).”); Matter of Dakota Cheese, 923 F.2d 576, 577 (8th Cir.1991) (explaining that, because motion was based on newly discovered evidence, it was governed by the 1-year limitation period of Rule 60(b)(2) and concluding the parties could not characteri | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Pointer v. Texas
green
2 sentences2008The historical importance of the right to confrontation was made even clearer by the right’s recognition as a bedrock principle applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment, Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965), and the reaffirmation of the right’s precedence over considerations of reliability, as well as the established hearsay exceptions, Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68-69 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . 2008The historical importance of the right to confrontation was made even clearer by the right’s recognition as a bedrock principle applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment, Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965), and the reaffirmation of the right’s precedence over considerations of reliability, as well as the established hearsay exceptions, Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68-69 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
R. A. v. v. City of St. Paul
green
2 sentences1994As this court stated in its decision in Matter of Welfare of R.A.V., 464 N.W.2d 507 (Minn.1991), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2538 , 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992): “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Id. at 511 (citing Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 , 109 S.Ct. 2533 , 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)). 1994As this court stated in its decision in Matter of Welfare of R.A.V., 464 N.W.2d 507 (Minn.1991), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2538 , 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992): “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Id. at 511 (citing Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 , 109 S.Ct. 2533 , 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In Re the Welfare of R.A.V.
green
2 sentences1994As this court stated in its decision in Matter of Welfare of R.A.V., 464 N.W.2d 507 (Minn.1991), rev'd on other grounds, ___ U.S. ____, 112 S.Ct. 2538 , 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992): "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Id. at 511 (citing Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 , 109 S.Ct. 2533 , 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)). 1994As this court stated in its decision in Matter of Welfare of R.A.V., 464 N.W.2d 507 (Minn.1991), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2538 , 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992): “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Id. at 511 (citing Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 , 109 S.Ct. 2533 , 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Cantwell v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences1991“Resort to epithets or personal abuse,” however, “is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act [raises] no question under that instrument.” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309-10 , 60 S.Ct. 900, 905-06 , 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). 1991“Resort to epithets or personal abuse,” however, “is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act [raises] no question under that instrument.” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309-10 , 60 S.Ct. 900, 905-06 , 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.