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 1985–2016 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. Florencegreen2 sentences2016It has been said 1 A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of probable cause that the defendant committed the offense charged, and this type of hearing “has come to be called a Florence hearing based on the case of State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , 239 N.W.2d 892 (1976).” State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366 , 370 n.2 (Minn. 2003). 3 that the test of probable cause is whether the evidence worthy of consideration, in any aspect for the judicial mind to act upon, brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability. 2016It has been said 1 A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of probable cause that the defendant committed the offense charged, and this type of hearing “has come to be called a Florence hearing based on the case of State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , 239 N.W.2d 892 (1976).” State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366 , 370 n.2 (Minn. 2003). 3 that the test of probable cause is whether the evidence worthy of consideration, in any aspect for the judicial mind to act upon, brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability. | 3 | 6 |
State v. Lowriegreen2 sentences2003This type of hearing has come to be called a Florence hearing based on the case of State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , 239 N.W.2d 892 (1976). [3] In the context of attempt crimes, we have interpreted the statutory definition of attempt, Minn.Stat. § 610.27, repealed 1963, ("[a]n act done with intent to commit a crime and tending, but failing, to accomplish it"), as requiring "more than the mere solicitation of another to commit." State v. Lowrie, 237 Minn. 240, 242-43 , 54 N.W.2d 265, 266 (1952). "[M]ere acts of preparation remote from the time and place of the intended crime, unaccompanied by 2003This type of hearing has come to be called a Florence hearing based on the case of State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , 239 N.W.2d 892 (1976). [3] In the context of attempt crimes, we have interpreted the statutory definition of attempt, Minn.Stat. § 610.27, repealed 1963, ("[a]n act done with intent to commit a crime and tending, but failing, to accomplish it"), as requiring "more than the mere solicitation of another to commit." State v. Lowrie, 237 Minn. 240, 242-43 , 54 N.W.2d 265, 266 (1952). "[M]ere acts of preparation remote from the time and place of the intended crime, unaccompanied by | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schwartzgreen2 sentences2003See State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104, 108 , 122 N.W.2d 769, 772 (1963). 2003See State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104, 108 , 122 N.W.2d 769, 772 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Welfare of Haalandgreen2 sentences1985See, e.g., In re Welfare of Haaland, 346 N.W.2d 190, 193 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). 1985See, e.g., In re Welfare of Haaland, 346 N.W.2d 190, 193 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). | 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. Koenig
green
2 sentences2016It has been said 1 A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of probable cause that the defendant committed the offense charged, and this type of hearing “has come to be called a Florence hearing based on the case of State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , 239 N.W.2d 892 (1976).” State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366 , 370 n.2 (Minn. 2003). 3 that the test of probable cause is whether the evidence worthy of consideration, in any aspect for the judicial mind to act upon, brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability. 2016It has been said 1 A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of probable cause that the defendant committed the offense charged, and this type of hearing “has come to be called a Florence hearing based on the case of State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , 239 N.W.2d 892 (1976).” State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366 , 370 n.2 (Minn. 2003). 3 that the test of probable cause is whether the evidence worthy of consideration, in any aspect for the judicial mind to act upon, brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Rud
green
2 sentences1994Under State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , 239 N.W.2d 892 (1976), as modified by State v. Rud, 359 N.W.2d 573 (Minn.1984), “the production of exonerating evidence by a defendant at the probable cause hearing does not justify the dismissal of the charges if the record establishes that the prosecutor possesses substantial evidence that will be admissible at trial and that would justify denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.” Rud, 359 N.W.2d at 579 . 1994Under State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , 239 N.W.2d 892 (1976), as modified by State v. Rud, 359 N.W.2d 573 (Minn.1984), “the production of exonerating evidence by a defendant at the probable cause hearing does not justify the dismissal of the charges if the record establishes that the prosecutor possesses substantial evidence that will be admissible at trial and that would justify denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.” Rud, 359 N.W.2d at 579 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Stallings
green
2 sentences1991Id. 1991State v. Stallings, 474 N.W.2d 645 (Minn.App.1991). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. Robert J. Snyder
green
2 sentences1991One example of a case using this kind of multi-factor approach is United States v. Snyder, 872 F.2d 1351 (7th Cir.1989), dealing with the issue of the admission of grand jury testimony under the “catchall” exception. 1991One example of a case using this kind of multi-factor approach is United States v. Snyder, 872 F.2d 1351 (7th Cir.1989), dealing with the issue of the admission of grand jury testimony under the “catchall” exception. | 1 | 1991–1991 |