8 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2016 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. Windishgreen2 sentences2016“The circumstances surrounding the frequency and intensity of a defendant’s assertion of a speedy trial demand—including the import of defense decisions to seek delays—can be weighed in the third [factor]. . . .” Windish, 590 N.W.2d at 318 . 2016“The circumstances surrounding the frequency and intensity of a defendant’s assertion of a speedy trial demand—including the import of defense decisions to seek delays—can be weighed in the third [factor] . . . .” Windish, 590 N.W.2d at 318 . | 2 | 5 |
State v. Friberggreen2 sentences2016Although the defendant is not required to repeatedly reassert the right, “the strength of the demand is likely to reflect the seriousness and extent of the prejudice which has resulted.” Friberg, 435 N.W.2d at 515 . 2011While there is no requirement that a defendant continue to reassert the demand, this court considers the frequency and force of the speedy-trial demand because “the strength of the demand is likely to reflect the seriousness and extent of the prejudice.” State v. Friberg, 435 N.W.2d 509, 515 (Minn.1989). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Abrahamgreen2 sentences1995The trial court disagreed, and in its memorandum supporting its order denying Pet-tee’s motion to dismiss the second indictment, the court explained that the language “simply provides notice that further prosecution for the same offense previously considered is not barred and may proceed by a new indictment.” Affirming the trial court, the court of appeals stated that “the primary import of the rule’s ‘same offense’ language is that jeopardy does not attach to grand jury proceedings.” Pettee, 511 N.W.2d at 45 ; see State v. Abraham, 335 N.W.2d 745, 748 (Minn.1983), citing Crist v. Bretz, 437 U 1995The trial court disagreed, and in its memorandum supporting its order denying Pettee's motion to dismiss the second indictment, the court explained that the language "simply provides notice that further prosecution for the same offense previously considered is not barred and may proceed by a new indictment." Affirming the trial court, the court of appeals stated that "the primary import of the rule's `same offense' language is that jeopardy does not attach to grand jury proceedings." Pettee, 511 N.W.2d at 45 ; see State v. Abraham, 335 N.W.2d 745, 748 (Minn.1983), citing Crist v. Bretz, 437 U. | 1 | 1 |
Crist v. Bretzgreen2 sentences1995The trial court disagreed, and in its memorandum supporting its order denying Pettee's motion to dismiss the second indictment, the court explained that the language "simply provides notice that further prosecution for the same offense previously considered is not barred and may proceed by a new indictment." Affirming the trial court, the court of appeals stated that "the primary import of the rule's `same offense' language is that jeopardy does not attach to grand jury proceedings." Pettee, 511 N.W.2d at 45 ; see State v. Abraham, 335 N.W.2d 745, 748 (Minn.1983), citing Crist v. Bretz, 437 U. 1995The trial court disagreed, and in its memorandum supporting its order denying Pettee's motion to dismiss the second indictment, the court explained that the language "simply provides notice that further prosecution for the same offense previously considered is not barred and may proceed by a new indictment." Affirming the trial court, the court of appeals stated that "the primary import of the rule's `same offense' language is that jeopardy does not attach to grand jury proceedings." Pettee, 511 N.W.2d at 45 ; see State v. Abraham, 335 N.W.2d 745, 748 (Minn.1983), citing Crist v. Bretz, 437 U. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DLH, Inc. v. Russ
green
2 sentences2000Appellant does not “make a showing sufficient to establish that essential element.” Id. at 71 , (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23 , 106 S.Ct. at 2552 ). [W]e conclude that while the Supreme Court uses different language, the import of its analysis [in Celotex. 2000Appellant does not "make a showing sufficient to establish that essential element." Id. at 71 , (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23 , 106 S.Ct. at 2552 ). [W]e conclude that while the Supreme Court uses different language, the import of its analysis [in Celotex. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett
green
2 sentences2000Appellant does not “make a showing sufficient to establish that essential element.” Id. at 71 , (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23 , 106 S.Ct. at 2552 ). [W]e conclude that while the Supreme Court uses different language, the import of its analysis [in Celotex. 2000Appellant does not “make a showing sufficient to establish that essential element.” Id. at 71 , (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23 , 106 S.Ct. at 2552 ). [W]e conclude that while the Supreme Court uses different language, the import of its analysis [in Celotex. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
STATE OF MINN., CITY OF LITTLE CANADA v. Rachie
green
1 sentence1999Additionally, we are concerned that the Rachie decision overreaches Barker when it states that making a formal request for a speedy trial is a “simple matter.” 427 N.W.2d at 257 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Pettee
green
2 sentences1995The trial court disagreed, and in its memorandum supporting its order denying Pet-tee’s motion to dismiss the second indictment, the court explained that the language “simply provides notice that further prosecution for the same offense previously considered is not barred and may proceed by a new indictment.” Affirming the trial court, the court of appeals stated that “the primary import of the rule’s ‘same offense’ language is that jeopardy does not attach to grand jury proceedings.” Pettee, 511 N.W.2d at 45 ; see State v. Abraham, 335 N.W.2d 745, 748 (Minn.1983), citing Crist v. Bretz, 437 U 1995The trial court disagreed, and in its memorandum supporting its order denying Pettee's motion to dismiss the second indictment, the court explained that the language "simply provides notice that further prosecution for the same offense previously considered is not barred and may proceed by a new indictment." Affirming the trial court, the court of appeals stated that "the primary import of the rule's `same offense' language is that jeopardy does not attach to grand jury proceedings." Pettee, 511 N.W.2d at 45 ; see State v. Abraham, 335 N.W.2d 745, 748 (Minn.1983), citing Crist v. Bretz, 437 U. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.