6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1919–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co.green1 sentence2024During the first part of the hearing, 1 See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 104 N.W.2d 301, 303 (Minn. 1960) (permitting a district court to examine a juror regarding alleged juror misconduct in the presence of the parties). 2 the district court closed the courtroom to the public during the testimony of two jurors, including M.H., who testified as follows: THE COURT: So do you recall any discussion during deliberations about classes or instruction on concealed carry or permit to carry? | 1 | 1 |
Fields v. Stategreen1 sentence2008The first part of this test requires that the petitioner prove that “counsel’s representation fell *709 below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Fields v. State, 733 N.W.2d 465, 468 (Minn.2007) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ). | 1 | 1 |
Leake v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Objective reasonableness requires that counsel exercise “the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would [exercise] under the circumstances.” Leake v. State, 737 N.W.2d 531, 536 (Minn.2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2008The first part of this test requires that the petitioner prove that “counsel’s representation fell *709 below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Fields v. State, 733 N.W.2d 465, 468 (Minn.2007) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ). 2008The first part of this test requires that the petitioner prove that “counsel’s representation fell *709 below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Fields v. State, 733 N.W.2d 465, 468 (Minn.2007) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority
green
1 sentence2002Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
United States v. Paccione
green
1 sentence1995In Paccione the rule was satisfied where the defendant faced serious penalties if convicted, there was evidence that a codefendant had been murdered by certain defendants in the case, the defendant was a member of the Gambino crime family, government witnesses had received anonymous threats, and there was extensive pretrial publicity. 949 F.2d at 1192-93 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Miller v. Astleford Equipment Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence1987To meet the first part of the test appellant must “[claim] an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action.” Id. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Gardner v. Kellogg
green
1 sentence1919The pith of the instruction as applied to the case in hand is found in this sentence: “So that the fact whether or not plainitff made complaint to her husband and others to whom she might be expected to make complaint, within such time as would under the circumstances be reasonable, is important for your consideration in determining whether or not her story is true.” Considering that evidence upon this phase of the case inadmissible and to be treated the same as if the charge were criminal, as held in Gardner v. Kellogg, 23 Minn. 463 , we think the instruction proper. | 1 | 1919–1919 |
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.