8 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wolf v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATIONgreen2 sentences2016The Minnesota Supreme Court has “identified a non- exclusive list of factors to be considered.” Id. 2015The supreme court has “establish[ed] that [it] will only apply the interests of justice exception in exceptional situations . . . [and] ha[s] identified a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered.” Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575, 586 (Minn. 2010). | 1 | 6 |
Deegan v. Stategreen2 sentences2010In Deegan v. State, we discussed the interests of justice exception to the Knaffla rule. 711 N.W.2d 89, 93-94 (Minn.2006). 2010In Deegan v. State, we discussed the interests of justice exception to the Knaffla rule. 711 N.W.2d 89, 93-94 (Minn.2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Troggreen1 sentence2003The supreme court has identified a non-exclusive list of factors as relevant to amenability to probation, those being “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn.1982). | 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.