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 1998–2016 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. Millergreen2 sentences2004Cf State v. Fields, 679 N.W.2d 341, 345 (Minn.2004) (“Although appellate courts review the presence or absence of historical facts for clear error, the surrounding circumstances relevant to a Sixth Amendment determination are reviewed de novo.”); State v. Miller, 573 N.W.2d 661, 670 (Minn.1998) (stating that an appellate court reviews a district court’s findings of fact for clear error, but “makes an independent review * * ⅜ of the district court’s determination regarding custody and the necessity of a Miranda warning”). 1999State v. Miller, 573 N.W.2d 661, 670 (Minn. 1998) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fieldsgreen1 sentence2004Cf State v. Fields, 679 N.W.2d 341, 345 (Minn.2004) (“Although appellate courts review the presence or absence of historical facts for clear error, the surrounding circumstances relevant to a Sixth Amendment determination are reviewed de novo.”); State v. Miller, 573 N.W.2d 661, 670 (Minn.1998) (stating that an appellate court reviews a district court’s findings of fact for clear error, but “makes an independent review * * ⅜ of the district court’s determination regarding custody and the necessity of a Miranda warning”). | 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. Hince
green
2 sentences2002Hince, 540 N.W.2d at 823 . 1998Id. | 3 | 1998–2002 |
State v. Vue
green
1 sentence2016To determine whether questioning has occurred in a custodial setting, we have identified a number of facts that are “indicative of custody.” Vue, 797 N.W.2d at 11 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |