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.
7 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1938–2024 1 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. Vailgreen2 sentences2010In support of their argument, Enoch and Watson rely primarily on Vail , in which the supreme court reversed a defendant’s conviction for sale and possession of marijuana after concluding that the evidence was insufficient to identify the substance as marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt. 274 N.W.2d at 129, 134 . 2010But even so, the Vail opinion, which concerned marijuana, did not establish a bright-line rule that applies to a case involving methamphetamine; there is no rule of law arising from Vail that would require a district court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal if the state’s scientific evidence was limited to the result of a NIK Test U. In fact, the Vail court expressly stated the contrary proposition: “We have not prescribed minimum eviden-tiary requirements in identification cases, preferring to examine the sufficiency of the evidence on a case-by-case basis.” 274 N.W.2d at 134 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Knochgreen2 sentences2016In State v. Knoch, 781 N.W.2d 170 (Minn. App. 2010), this court held that, for purposes of determining the existence of probable cause, there is no “bright- line rule forbidding the use of a field test of a controlled substance.” Id. at 180 . 2016In State v. Knoch, 781 N.W.2d 170 (Minn. App. 2010), this court held that, for purposes of determining the existence of probable cause, there is no “bright- line rule forbidding the use of a field test of a controlled substance.” Id. at 180 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Horan v. Keane
neutral
2 sentences2024Relying on these donations, “the trustees added largely to the buildings and equipment of the college and and promissory estoppel but then added, “We shall not stop to consider the logic of the courts in their search for consideration in this class of cases.” 204 N.W at 547. 14 broadened the field of instruction.” Id. “[N]o attempt to collect” on the decedent’s note occurred during his lifetime. 2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Theis
green
1 sentence2016In the context of determining the existence of a proper factual basis for an Alford plea, the key question is whether “the evidence the State would likely offer . . . is sufficient for a jury, applying a reasonable doubt standard, to find the defendant guilty.” Theis, 742 N.W.2d at 649 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2010Knoch and Watson also rely, to a lesser extent, on State v. Robinson, 517 N.W.2d 336 (Minn.1994). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Gulbrandsen
green
2 sentences1964The same enlargement of the field of inquiry would result in civil cases.” See, also, Erickson v. Paulson, 251 Minn. 183 , 87 N. W. (2d) 585 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 . 1964The same enlargement of the field of inquiry would result in civil cases.” See, also, Erickson v. Paulson, 251 Minn. 183 , 87 N. W. (2d) 585 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Erickson v. Paulson
green
2 sentences1964The same enlargement of the field of inquiry would result in civil cases.” See, also, Erickson v. Paulson, 251 Minn. 183 , 87 N. W. (2d) 585 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 . 1964The same enlargement of the field of inquiry would result in civil cases.” See, also, Erickson v. Paulson, 251 Minn. 183 , 87 N. W. (2d) 585 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Helvering v. Gerhardt
green
2 sentences1938In that respect the argument supporting decision in Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U. S. 405 , 58 S. Ct. 969 , 82 L. ed. 1427, appears to me controlling. 1938In that respect the argument supporting decision in Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U. S. 405 , 58 S. Ct. 969 , 82 L. ed. 1427, appears to me controlling. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.