7 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1944–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hedglin v. City of Willmargreen2 sentences2008Id.; see also Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897, 902 (Minn.1998) (concluding that whistleblower statute "clearly and unambiguously protects reports made of a violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law"). 2008Id.; see also Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897, 902 (Minn.1998) (concluding that whistleblower statute “clearly and unambiguously protects reports made of a violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law”). | 2 | 2 |
Obst v. Microtron, Inc.green1 sentence2005Obst v. Microtron, Inc., 614 N.W.2d 196, 202 (Minn.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Diesen v. Hessburggreen2 sentences2002A district court's grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict "is a question of law subject to de novo review." Diesen v. Hessburg, 455 N.W.2d 446, 449 (Minn.1990). 2002A district court’s grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict “is a question of law subject to de novo review.” Diesen v. Hessburg, 455 N.W.2d 446, 449 (Minn.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Toms Point Apartments v. Goudzwardgreen1 sentence1976See, also, Toms Point Apartments v. Goudzward, 72 Misc. 2d 629, 632 , 339 N. Y. | 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. Schwantes
green
1 sentence1983This court found the report crucial to the defense’s trial strategy and stated that a new trial was required “to insure that the reciprocal discovery rules adopted by the court are observed by both the prosecution and the defense.” Id. at 245 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Dickhut v. Norton
green
2 sentences1976R. 3d 753. 4 See, in contrast, Dickhut v. Norton, 45 Wis. 2d 389 , 173 N. W. 2d 297 (1970), requiring a tenant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a code violation existed, that the landlord knew of the tenant’s report of the violation, and that the landlord sought to terminate the lease for the sole purpose of retaliation. 1976R. 3d 753. 4 See, in contrast, Dickhut v. Norton, 45 Wis. 2d 389 , 173 N. W. 2d 297 (1970), requiring a tenant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a code violation existed, that the landlord knew of the tenant’s report of the violation, and that the landlord sought to terminate the lease for the sole purpose of retaliation. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Hogue v. Smith
green
1 sentence1944The only cases to which our attention has been called wherein the court refused to suppress or expunge statements of similar import to those italicized in the report at bar are Irwin v. Murphy, 129 Cal. App. 713 , 19 P. (2d) 292 ; In re Report of Grand Jury, 152 Fla. 154 , 11 So. (2d) 316 . | 1 | 1944–1944 |
In Re: Report of Grand Jury
green
1 sentence1944The only cases to which our attention has been called wherein the court refused to suppress or expunge statements of similar import to those italicized in the report at bar are Irwin v. Murphy, 129 Cal. App. 713 , 19 P. (2d) 292 ; In re Report of Grand Jury, 152 Fla. 154 , 11 So. (2d) 316 . | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Irwin v. Murphy
green
2 sentences1944The only cases to which our attention has been called wherein the court refused to suppress or expunge statements of similar import to those italicized in the report at bar are Irwin v. Murphy, 129 Cal. App. 713 , 19 P. (2d) 292 ; In re Report of Grand Jury, 152 Fla. 154 , 11 So. (2d) 316 . 1944The only cases to which our attention has been called wherein the court refused to suppress or expunge statements of similar import to those italicized in the report at bar are Irwin v. Murphy, 129 Cal. App. 713 , 19 P. (2d) 292 ; In re Report of Grand Jury, 152 Fla. 154 , 11 So. (2d) 316 . | 1 | 1944–1944 |
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.