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 1979–2016 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. Paigegreen2 sentences2011See State v. Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d 390, 397 (Minn.2008) (reaffirming the interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 624.714 set forth in State v. Paige, 256 N.W.2d 298, 303 (Minn.1977)). 1999The supreme court has held that having a valid permit is an affirmative defense for which the defendant has a burden “to come forward with some evidence of a permit.” State v. Paige, 256 N.W.2d 298, 304 (Minn.1977). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Baumangreen1 sentence2016However, “[a] reviewing court may uphold a [seizure] as valid on other grounds, even if not properly asserted by the parties.” See State v. Bauman, 586 N.W.2d 416, 422 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Jan. 27, 1999); see also State v. Hannuksela, 452 N.W.2d 668 , 673 n.7 (Minn. 1990). 5 person under consideration is guilty of a crime.” State v. Trei, 624 N.W.2d 595, 597 (Minn. App. 2001), review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hannukselagreen1 sentence2016However, “[a] reviewing court may uphold a [seizure] as valid on other grounds, even if not properly asserted by the parties.” See State v. Bauman, 586 N.W.2d 416, 422 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Jan. 27, 1999); see also State v. Hannuksela, 452 N.W.2d 668 , 673 n.7 (Minn. 1990). 5 person under consideration is guilty of a crime.” State v. Trei, 624 N.W.2d 595, 597 (Minn. App. 2001), review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Treigreen1 sentence2016However, “[a] reviewing court may uphold a [seizure] as valid on other grounds, even if not properly asserted by the parties.” See State v. Bauman, 586 N.W.2d 416, 422 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Jan. 27, 1999); see also State v. Hannuksela, 452 N.W.2d 668 , 673 n.7 (Minn. 1990). 5 person under consideration is guilty of a crime.” State v. Trei, 624 N.W.2d 595, 597 (Minn. App. 2001), review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Timberlakegreen1 sentence2011See State v. Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d 390, 397 (Minn.2008) (reaffirming the interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 624.714 set forth in State v. Paige, 256 N.W.2d 298, 303 (Minn.1977)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewatergreen2 sentences2007But the court of appeals held that "[b]ecause the discharge from the Cities' proposed plant would contribute to the impairment of Section 303(d) waters," the MPCA "erred by issuing a permit in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 122.4 (i)." 702 N.W.2d at 776 . 2007But the court of appeals held that “[bjecause the discharge from the Cities’ proposed plant would contribute to the impairment of Section 303(d) waters,” the MPCA “erred by issuing a permit in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 122 .4®.” 702 N.W.2d at 776 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Poupardgreen1 sentence1999State v. Poupard, 471 N.W.2d 686, 689 (Minn.App.1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. DeLeggegreen1 sentence1991As respondent concedes, the public policy underlying the statute is to “prohibit criminal behavior,” State v. Folstrom, 331 N.W.2d 231, 233 (Minn.1983), and to “protect innocent people from being injured by handguns.” State v. DeLegge, 390 N.W.2d 10, 12 (Minn.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Folstromgreen1 sentence1991As respondent concedes, the public policy underlying the statute is to “prohibit criminal behavior,” State v. Folstrom, 331 N.W.2d 231, 233 (Minn.1983), and to “protect innocent people from being injured by handguns.” State v. DeLegge, 390 N.W.2d 10, 12 (Minn.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Blore v. Mosseygreen2 sentences1983In Blore v. Mossey, 311 Minn. 288, 290 , 249 N.W.2d 447, 448 (1976), this court noted that the permit requirement operates “to restrict the class of persons” who are allowed to carry pistols. 1983In Blore v. Mossey, 311 Minn. 288, 290 , 249 N.W.2d 447, 448 (1976), this court noted that the permit requirement operates “to restrict the class of persons” who are allowed to carry pistols. | 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. Blacksten
green
1 sentence2007In short, once Flowers chose not to stop, but to drive down the alley to buy himself time to hide something from the police who were trying to stop him, this case became about much more than a broken license-plate light. [34] Instead, the majority cites State v. Blacksten, 507 N.W.2d 842 (Minn.1993), a case about an arrest. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Kuluvar
green
2 sentences1979Because we have previously held that the permit requirement set out in § 105.42 is not on its face unconstitutional, see, State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408 , 123 N.W.2d 699 (1963), the drainage of the lake without a permit is impermissible and the maintenance of the artificial drain should be enjoined. 2. 1979Because we have previously held that the permit requirement set out in § 105.42 is not on its face unconstitutional, see, State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408 , 123 N.W.2d 699 (1963), the drainage of the lake without a permit is impermissible and the maintenance of the artificial drain should be enjoined. 2. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.