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 1993–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560green2 sentences2017Although we review the denial of an evidentiary hearing and a petition for post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, Rhodes v. State, 875 N.W.2d 779, 786 (Minn. 2016), the 'overall question of whether Dikken’s ’guilty plea was valid presents a question of law that we review de novo, Taylor v. State, 887 N.W.2d 821, 823 (Minn. 2016). 2016An appellate court “review[s] a denial of a petition for postconviction relief, as well as the denial of an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.” Rhodes v. State, 875 N.W.2d 779, 786 (Minn. 2016). | 3 | 3 |
Riley v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn.2012). 2016Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Holegreen1 sentence2025State v. Green, 747 N.W.2d 912, 917 (Minn. 2008); State v. Hole, 400 N.W.2d 430, 434-35 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by not permitting oral testimony at hearing on motion for new trial). | 1 | 1 |
Holton v. MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANYgreen1 sentence2025State v. Green, 747 N.W.2d 912, 917 (Minn. 2008); State v. Hole, 400 N.W.2d 430, 434-35 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by not permitting oral testimony at hearing on motion for new trial). | 1 | 1 |
Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesotagreen1 sentence2017Although we review the denial of an evidentiary hearing and a petition for post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, Rhodes v. State, 875 N.W.2d 779, 786 (Minn. 2016), the 'overall question of whether Dikken’s ’guilty plea was valid presents a question of law that we review de novo, Taylor v. State, 887 N.W.2d 821, 823 (Minn. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Jacob Stephen Brown v. State of Minnesotagreen1 sentence2017“We [will] not reverse the postconviction court unless the post-conviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” Brown v. State, 863 N.W.2d 781, 786 (Minn. 2015) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). . - Dikken argues that the postconviction court abused its discretion when it denied his request to withdraw his plea. | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Abbott v. Abbottgreen1 sentence1993Abbott v. Abbott, 481 N.W.2d 864, 868 (Minn.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.
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.