8 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2016 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. Dukesgreen2 sentences2003In Dukes I, we affirmed the district court judge's refusal to give that instruction. 544 N.W.2d at 20 . [8] Webster's Third International Dictionary 229; 829 (1993) (defining blame and fault). [1] Kevin McConnon testified that Lewis gave him an explanation of the day of the attempted robberies that contradicted Lewis' plea testimony. 2001State v. Dukes, 544 N.W.2d 13, 19 (Minn.1996) (distinguished by State v. Profit, 591 N.W.2d 451 (Minn.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S.Ct. 153 , 145 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999)). | 1 | 2 |
County of Sacramento v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2016Second, as the quoted text from Lewis indicates, the Lewis principle applies when a claimant attempts to “expand the concept of substantive due process.” 523 U.S. at 842 , 118 S.Ct. at 1714 (quotation omitted). 2016Second, as the quoted text from Lewis indicates, the Lewis principle applies when a claimant attempts to “expand the concept of substantive due process.” 523 U.S. at 842 , 118 S.Ct. at 1714 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Timothy Helseth v. John Burch, in His Individual Capacitygreen2 sentences2006See Helseth, 258 F.3d at 872 . 2006See Helseth, 258 F.3d at 872 . | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2003In Lewis v. Lewis, this court stated that a proper motion for amended findings must both identify the alleged defect in the challenged findings and explain why the challenged findings are defective. 572 N.W.2d 313, 315 (Minn.App.1997), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1998). 2003In Lewis v. Lewis, this court stated that a proper motion for amended findings must both identify the alleged defect in the challenged findings and explain why the challenged findings are defective. 572 N.W.2d 313, 315 (Minn.App.1997), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gustafsongreen1 sentence2002See State v. Gustafson, 610 N.W.2d 314, 321 (Minn.2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cermakgreen1 sentence2001Dukes relies on State v. Cermak for the proposition that evidence of a guilty plea of an accomplice may not be used as substantive evidence against the defendant and that, at a minimum, a limiting instruction should have been given to the jury. 365 N.W.2d 243, 247 (Minn.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety
green
1 sentence2016Assuming, without deciding, that the due-process claim in McDonnell was substantive, McDonnell establishes substantive-due-process relief when an implied-consent advisory misinforms .a person subject to testing under Minnesota’s implied-consent law that she could be charged with the crime of test refusal when such a charge is impossible. 473 N.W.2d at 855 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State Ex Rel. Fort Snelling State Park Ass'n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board
green
2 sentences2015Co., 612 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2000), overruled Lewis in part, but Lewis remains good law as far as determining “whether a motion for amended findings has the necessary components and, if it does, . . . whether to grant the motion.” State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., 673 N.W.2d 169 , 178 n.1 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Mar. 16, 2004). 7 conclusions of law, state why the findings are defective, and explain the propriety of appellant’s proposed findings and conclusions. 2015Co., 612 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2000), overruled Lewis in part, but Lewis remains good law as far as determining “whether a motion for amended findings has the necessary components and, if it does, . . . whether to grant the motion.” State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., 673 N.W.2d 169 , 178 n.1 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Mar. 16, 2004). 7 conclusions of law, state why the findings are defective, and explain the propriety of appellant’s proposed findings and conclusions. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Madson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences2015Co., 612 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2000), overruled Lewis in part, but Lewis remains good law as far as determining “whether a motion for amended findings has the necessary components and, if it does, . . . whether to grant the motion.” State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., 673 N.W.2d 169 , 178 n.1 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Mar. 16, 2004). 7 conclusions of law, state why the findings are defective, and explain the propriety of appellant’s proposed findings and conclusions. 2015Co., 612 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2000), overruled Lewis in part, but Lewis remains good law as far as determining “whether a motion for amended findings has the necessary components and, if it does, . . . whether to grant the motion.” State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., 673 N.W.2d 169 , 178 n.1 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Mar. 16, 2004). 7 conclusions of law, state why the findings are defective, and explain the propriety of appellant’s proposed findings and conclusions. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
JAMES TERRELL, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HEIRS AND NEXT OF KIN OF TALENA TERRELL, — v. BREK ANDREW LARSON SHAWN AARON LONGEN, —
green
2 sentences2006Terrell v. Larson, 396 F.3d 975 , 980 (8th Cir.2005). 2006Terrell v. Larson, 396 F.3d 975 , 980 (8th Cir.2005). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Profit v. Minnesota
green
1 sentence2001State v. Dukes, 544 N.W.2d 13, 19 (Minn.1996) (distinguished by State v. Profit, 591 N.W.2d 451 (Minn.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S.Ct. 153 , 145 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Gulley v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County
green
2 sentences2001State v. Dukes, 544 N.W.2d 13, 19 (Minn.1996) (distinguished by State v. Profit, 591 N.W.2d 451 (Minn.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S.Ct. 153 , 145 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999)). 2001We specifically stated that the Lewis plea testimony “contained sufficient indicia of reliability to avoid violating the Confrontation Clause.” Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Stephen v. United States
green
1 sentence2001State v. Dukes, 544 N.W.2d 13, 19 (Minn.1996) (distinguished by State v. Profit, 591 N.W.2d 451 (Minn.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S.Ct. 153 , 145 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Knaffla
green
2 sentences2001Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d at 741 . 2001Kna ffla, 243 N.W.2d at 741 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Profit
green
1 sentence2001State v. Dukes, 544 N.W.2d 13, 19 (Minn.1996) (distinguished by State v. Profit, 591 N.W.2d 451 (Minn.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S.Ct. 153 , 145 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Williamson v. United States
green
2 sentences1996The trial court admitted Lewis’s plea transcript in evidence under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) — the statement against interest exception to the rule against hearsay — and also cited Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994) in support of its ruling. 1996The trial court admitted Lewis’s plea transcript in evidence under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) — the statement against interest exception to the rule against hearsay — and also cited Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994) in support of its ruling. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.