8 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2012 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. Jamesgreen2 sentences2012See James, 484 N.W.2d at 800-01 ; see also Burkland, 775 N.W.2d at 375 (stating that “the James factors are not directly applicable” to a “sex-for-money exchange involving intimate activities on the part of the buyer and seller”). 2012See James, 484 N.W.2d at 800-01 ; see also Burkland, 775 N.W.2d at 375 (stating that “the James factors are not directly applicable” to a “sex-for-money exchange involving intimate activities on the part of the buyer and seller”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Burklandgreen2 sentences2012He argues that the Cl’s use of sex “to get Christenson to sell her drugs makes this case analogous to Burkland” and that “the resolution of [Christenson’s] due-process claim should have been decided by the analysis applicable to due-process outrageous conduct claims that arise when sex is used to investigate alleged criminal conduct like prostitution.” He further argues that “[the James ] factors are not helpful and appropriate to resolving Christenson’s due-process claim because the range of factors is too broad.” See Burkland, 775 N.W.2d at 375 (declining to apply the James factors “because 2012He argues that the Cl’s use of sex “to get Christenson to sell her drugs makes this case analogous to Burkland” and that “the resolution of [Christenson’s] due-process claim should have been decided by the analysis applicable to due-process outrageous conduct claims that arise when sex is used to investigate alleged criminal conduct like prostitution.” He further argues that “[the James ] factors are not helpful and appropriate to resolving Christenson’s due-process claim because the range of factors is too broad.” See Burkland, 775 N.W.2d at 375 (declining to apply the James factors “because | 1 | 1 |
Isles Wellness, Inc. v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.green1 sentence2007See Isles Wellness, Inc., 703 N.W.2d at 516 . | 1 | 1 |
Fox v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Fox v. State, 474 N.W.2d 821, 826 (Minn.1991) (holding that a four-year delay weighs against granting the motion to withdraw a guilty plea). 2004See Fox v. State, 474 N.W.2d 821, 826 (Minn.1991) (holding that a four-year delay weighs against granting the motion to withdraw a guilty plea). | 1 | 1 |
Larkin v. McCabegreen2 sentences1990Cf. Larkin v. McCabe, 211 Minn. 11, 24 , 299 N.W. 649, 655 (1941). 1990Cf. Larkin v. McCabe, 211 Minn. 11, 24 , 299 N.W. 649, 655 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lussier v. State
green
2 sentences2012Lussier v. State, 821 N.W.2d 581, 586 n. 2 (Minn.2012). 2012Lussier v. State, 821 N.W.2d 581, 586 n. 2 (Minn.2012). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
James v. State
green
2 sentences2005P. 15.05, subd. 1, "James's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, filed more than * * * three years after the imposition of the conditional-release term, was not timely." James, 674 N.W.2d at 219 . 2005P. 15.05, subd. 1, “James’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, filed more than * * * three years after the imposition of the conditional-release term, was not timely.” James, 674 N.W.2d at 219 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
cluster 338494
green
2 sentences1979For a recent case applying the James rule, see United States v. DiMuro, 540 F.2d 503 (1st Cir. 1976). 1979For a recent case applying the James rule, see United States v. DiMuro, 540 F.2d 503 (1st Cir. 1976). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.