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 1965–2016 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 Ex Rel. Guth v. Fabiangreen2 sentences2016Guth v. Fabian, 716 N.W.2d 23 , 26–27 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 2006). 2008“A writ of habeas corpus may also be used to raise claims involving fundamental constitutional rights and significant restraints on a defendant’s liberty or to challenge the conditions of confinement.” Guth, 716 N.W.2d at 26-27 . | 2 | 4 |
Kelsey v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., Kelsey v. State, 283 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn.1979) (noting that habeas corpus may be used to challenge prison conditions as cruel and unusual punishment). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Market Men's Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences1965Co. 262 Minn. 509 , 115 N. W. (2d) 266 , the order of the trial judge denying Liberty’s motion to intervene in this case appears to have been based on the ground that Liberty had no protectable interest in the litigation and, so considered, it was as to Liberty a final order. 1965Co. 262 Minn. 509 , 115 N. W. (2d) 266 , the order of the trial judge denying Liberty’s motion to intervene in this case appears to have been based on the ground that Liberty had no protectable interest in the litigation and, so considered, it was as to Liberty a final order. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.