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.
6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
O'CONNOR v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2014However, in contrast to parallel constitutional provisions, in which the United States Constitution provides a floor with respect to those rights that are incorporated against the states, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 (1988); State v. Fuller, 374 N.W. 2d 722, 726-27 (Minn. 1985); O’Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W. 2d 400, 405 (Minn. 1979), nothing prevents a state court from adopting a procedural rule that provides less protection to criminal defendants than a comparable federal rule. 2014However, in contrast to parallel constitutional provisions, in which the United States Constitution provides a floor with respect to those rights that are incorporated against the states, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 , 108 S.Ct. 1625 , 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988); State v. Fuller, 374 N.W.2d 722, 726-27 (Minn.1985); O’Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W.2d 400, 405 (Minn.1979), nothing prevents a state court from adopting a procedural rule that provides less protection to criminal defendants than a comparable federal rule. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Underdahlgreen2 sentences2014Our task in interpreting procedural rules is to adopt the better interpretation of the rule’s text, see State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677, 682 (Minn. 2009), whether or not the interpretation we adopt is more or less restrictive than a corresponding federal rule. 2014Our task in interpreting procedural rules is to adopt the better interpretation of the rule’s text, see State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677, 682 (Minn.2009), whether or not the interpretation we adopt is more or less restrictive than a corresponding federal rule. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fullergreen2 sentences2014However, in contrast to parallel constitutional provisions, in which the United States Constitution provides a floor with respect to those rights that are incorporated against the states, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 (1988); State v. Fuller, 374 N.W. 2d 722, 726-27 (Minn. 1985); O’Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W. 2d 400, 405 (Minn. 1979), nothing prevents a state court from adopting a procedural rule that provides less protection to criminal defendants than a comparable federal rule. 2014However, in contrast to parallel constitutional provisions, in which the United States Constitution provides a floor with respect to those rights that are incorporated against the states, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 , 108 S.Ct. 1625 , 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988); State v. Fuller, 374 N.W.2d 722, 726-27 (Minn.1985); O’Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W.2d 400, 405 (Minn.1979), nothing prevents a state court from adopting a procedural rule that provides less protection to criminal defendants than a comparable federal rule. | 1 | 1 |
California v. Greenwoodgreen2 sentences2014However, in contrast to parallel constitutional provisions, in which the United States Constitution provides a floor with respect to those rights that are incorporated against the states, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 , 108 S.Ct. 1625 , 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988); State v. Fuller, 374 N.W.2d 722, 726-27 (Minn.1985); O’Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W.2d 400, 405 (Minn.1979), nothing prevents a state court from adopting a procedural rule that provides less protection to criminal defendants than a comparable federal rule. 2014However, in contrast to parallel constitutional provisions, in which the United States Constitution provides a floor with respect to those rights that are incorporated against the states, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 , 108 S.Ct. 1625 , 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988); State v. Fuller, 374 N.W.2d 722, 726-27 (Minn.1985); O’Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W.2d 400, 405 (Minn.1979), nothing prevents a state court from adopting a procedural rule that provides less protection to criminal defendants than a comparable federal rule. | 1 | 1 |
Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.green2 sentences2014Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 603 (Minn. 2014) (quoting T.A. 2014Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 603 (Minn.2014) (quoting T.A. | 1 | 1 |
Balafas v. Angelosgreen2 sentences2013Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 states that “blind-ings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” The corresponding federal rule states that “[f]indings of fact, whether based on oral or other evidence, must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(6); see also In re Estate of Ba 2013Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 states that “blind-ings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” The corresponding federal rule states that “[f]indings of fact, whether based on oral or other evidence, must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(6); see also In re Estate of Ba | 1 | 1 |
In Re Probate Court, Hennepin Countygreen2 sentences2013Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 states that “blind-ings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” The corresponding federal rule states that “[f]indings of fact, whether based on oral or other evidence, must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(6); see also In re Estate of Ba 2013Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 states that “blind-ings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” The corresponding federal rule states that “[f]indings of fact, whether based on oral or other evidence, must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(6); see also In re Estate of Ba | 1 | 1 |
Tonka Tours, Inc. v. Chadimagreen1 sentence2013In Tonka Tours, Inc. v. Chadima, we stated that a district court’s findings of fact “will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous” and noted that “when the lower court is the trier of fact, its findings on disputed questions are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict.” 372 N.W.2d 723, 726 (Minn.1985); see also Walters v. Common Sch. | 1 | 1 |
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold S. McCLINTOCK, Defendant-Appellantgreen2 sentences1998See United States v. Gray, 852 F.2d 136, 139 (4th Cir.1988); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1288 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Brewer, 451 F.Supp. 50, 52 (E.D.Tenn.1978). 1998See United States v. Gray, 852 F.2d 136, 139 (4th Cir.1988); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1288 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Brewer, 451 F.Supp. 50, 52 (E.D.Tenn.1978). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Linwood Gray, United States of America v. Harry L. Staleygreen2 sentences1998See United States v. Gray, 852 F.2d 136, 139 (4th Cir.1988); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1288 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Brewer, 451 F.Supp. 50, 52 (E.D.Tenn.1978). 1998See United States v. Gray, 852 F.2d 136, 139 (4th Cir.1988); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1288 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Brewer, 451 F.Supp. 50, 52 (E.D.Tenn.1978). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Brewergreen2 sentences1998See United States v. Gray, 852 F.2d 136, 139 (4th Cir.1988); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1288 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Brewer, 451 F.Supp. 50, 52 (E.D.Tenn.1978). 1998See United States v. Gray, 852 F.2d 136, 139 (4th Cir.1988); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1288 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Brewer, 451 F.Supp. 50, 52 (E.D.Tenn.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Betty v. Pace, as Administratrix of the Estate of Floyd J. Pace, Jr., Deceased v. Southern Express Companygreen1 sentence1998Paulucci, 826 F.2d at 783 (citing Pace v. Southern Express Co., 409 F.2d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1969)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jeno F. Paulucci and Lois Paulucci v. City of Duluth and Lake Superior Paper Industries
green
1 sentence1998Paulucci, 826 F.2d at 783 (citing Pace v. Southern Express Co., 409 F.2d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1969)). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Wiesner v. Young
green
2 sentences1963The suitable remedy in such a case is to drop the party who has been improperly joined.” See, also, Wiesner v. Young, 50 Minn. 21 , 52 N. W. 390 . 1963The suitable remedy in such a case is to drop the party who has been improperly joined.” See, also, Wiesner v. Young, 50 Minn. 21 , 52 N. W. 390 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Erickson v. Fisher
neutral
2 sentences1954The same rule has apparently always existed in Minnesota, Erickson v. Fisher, 51 Minn. 300 , 53 N. W. 638 , and prevails under the federal rules. 1954The same rule has apparently always existed in Minnesota, Erickson v. Fisher, 51 Minn. 300 , 53 N. W. 638 , and prevails under the federal rules. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Marks v. Brown
green
1 sentence1954C. 304, 305, 181 F. (2d) 793, 794, citing cases interpreting the corresponding federal rule. 10 Thorpe v. Cooley, 138 Minn. 431 , 165 N. W. 265 . 11 Rule 15.02. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Thorpe v. Cooley
neutral
1 sentence1954C. 304, 305, 181 F. (2d) 793, 794, citing cases interpreting the corresponding federal rule. 10 Thorpe v. Cooley, 138 Minn. 431 , 165 N. W. 265 . 11 Rule 15.02. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.