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 2001–2015 0 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. Digginsgreen2 sentences2015“Generally, each party has a limited number of peremptory challenges in a jury trial.” State v. Diggins, 836 N.W.2d 349, 354 (Minn. 2013). 2015“Generally, each party has a limited number of peremptory challenges in a jury trial.” State v. Diggins, 836 N.W.2d 349, 354 (Minn.2013). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Amosgreen1 sentence2015On appeal, the appellant has the burden of establishing that the trial court abused its discretion and that appellant was thereby 4 prejudiced.” State v. Amos, 658 N.W.2d 201, 203 (Minn. 2003) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leinwebergreen2 sentences2007In State v. Leinweber, we held that a district court committed prejudicial error when it refused to give a heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction to the jury, despite the fact that the defendant maintained that he shot his wife by accident while dislodging jammed shells from his rifle. 303 Minn. 414, 415-17 , 228 N.W.2d 120, 122-23 (1975). 2007In State v. Leinweber, we held that a district court committed prejudicial error when it refused to give a heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction to the jury, despite the fact that the defendant maintained that he shot his wife by accident while dislodging jammed shells from his rifle. 303 Minn. 414, 415-17 , 228 N.W.2d 120, 122-23 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sanchez-Diazgreen1 sentence2006Medal-Mendoza next argues that the district court committed prejudicial error when it allowed Sergeant Dunnom of the Saint Paul Police Department to testify as an expert about the violent character of the “drug community” and the phenomenon of “triangulation.” Specifically, at Medal-Mendoza’s trial Dunnom testified over Medal-Mendoza’s relevancy objection that “triangulation” occurs when a drug buyer brings additional people, who “split and go into a formation where they have now — you can’t watch all of them, the exits or entrances are now covered and you have someone to your left, to the rig | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2006See State v. Johnson, 679 N.W.2d 378, 388 (Minn.App.2004), review denied (Minn. Aug. 17, 2004). 2006See State v. Johnson, 679 N.W.2d 378, 388 (Minn.App.2004), review denied (Minn. Aug. 17, 2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mortongreen1 sentence2006Medal-Mendoza next argues that the district court committed prejudicial error when it allowed Sergeant Dunnom of the Saint Paul Police Department to testify as an expert about the violent character of the “drug community” and the phenomenon of “triangulation.” Specifically, at Medal-Mendoza’s trial Dunnom testified over Medal-Mendoza’s relevancy objection that “triangulation” occurs when a drug buyer brings additional people, who “split and go into a formation where they have now — you can’t watch all of them, the exits or entrances are now covered and you have someone to your left, to the rig | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Welfare of M.D.O.green1 sentence2001In re Welfare of M.D.O., 462 N.W.2d 370, 375 (Minn.1990) (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 , 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983)). | 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. Koppi
green
1 sentence2014In Koppi, the supreme court held that the district court committed prejudicial error by instructing the jury that “[p]robable cause means that the officer can explain the reason the officer believes it was more likely than not that the defendant drove, operated or was in physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.” Id. at 363 (quoting 10A Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 29.28 (Supp. 2009)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Arizona v. California
green
2 sentences2001In re Welfare of M.D.O., 462 N.W.2d 370, 375 (Minn.1990) (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 , 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983)). 2001In re Welfare of M.D.O., 462 N.W.2d 370, 375 (Minn.1990) (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 , 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.