6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2006 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'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros.green2 sentences2006O’Malley v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Minn.1996). 2006O'Malley v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Minn. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Staveneaugreen2 sentences1999Cf. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 739-40 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987) (distinguishing competency hearing as a “pretrial proceeding” and therefore not a stage of trial is not helpful as it does not take into account the hearing’s direct impact on the trial); State v. Grey, 256 N.W.2d 74, 76-77 (Minn.1977) (a pretrial suppression hearing is a stage of trial); State v. Staveneau, 158 Minn. 329, 330-31 , 197 N.W. 667, 668 (1924) (judge’s answer to jury questions after jury entered deliberations requires defendant’s presence). 1999Cf. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 739-40 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987) (distinguishing competency hearing as a “pretrial proceeding” and therefore not a stage of trial is not helpful as it does not take into account the hearing’s direct impact on the trial); State v. Grey, 256 N.W.2d 74, 76-77 (Minn.1977) (a pretrial suppression hearing is a stage of trial); State v. Staveneau, 158 Minn. 329, 330-31 , 197 N.W. 667, 668 (1924) (judge’s answer to jury questions after jury entered deliberations requires defendant’s presence). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greygreen2 sentences1999Cf. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 739-40 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987) (distinguishing competency hearing as a “pretrial proceeding” and therefore not a stage of trial is not helpful as it does not take into account the hearing’s direct impact on the trial); State v. Grey, 256 N.W.2d 74, 76-77 (Minn.1977) (a pretrial suppression hearing is a stage of trial); State v. Staveneau, 158 Minn. 329, 330-31 , 197 N.W. 667, 668 (1924) (judge’s answer to jury questions after jury entered deliberations requires defendant’s presence). 1999Cf. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 739-40 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987) (distinguishing competency hearing as a "pretrial proceeding" and therefore not a stage of trial is not helpful as it does not take into account the hearing's direct impact on the trial); State v. Grey, 256 N.W.2d 74, 76-77 (Minn.1977) (a pretrial suppression hearing is a stage of trial); State v. Staveneau, 158 Minn. 329, 330-31 , 197 N.W. 667, 668 (1924) (judge's answer to jury questions after jury entered deliberations requires defendant's presence). | 1 | 1 |
Gruenhagen v. Larsongreen1 sentence1993See id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vanggreen1 sentence1987See State v. Vang, 357 N.W.2d 128 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Swansongreen1 sentence1985As we stated recently in State v. Swanson, 353 N.W.2d 128, 130 (Minn.1984), “Generally, in order to obtain a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, the defendant has to establish that the evidence was not known to him at the time of trial, that his failure to learn of it was not due to lack of diligence, that the evidence is material, and that it will probably produce an acquittal at a retrial.” At the post-trial hearing on his motion for a new trial, defendant called an investigator, who testified that he had learned that one Larone Toy had approached defendant’s fiancee, Grace | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kentucky v. Stincer
green
2 sentences1999Cf. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 739-40 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987) (distinguishing competency hearing as a “pretrial proceeding” and therefore not a stage of trial is not helpful as it does not take into account the hearing’s direct impact on the trial); State v. Grey, 256 N.W.2d 74, 76-77 (Minn.1977) (a pretrial suppression hearing is a stage of trial); State v. Staveneau, 158 Minn. 329, 330-31 , 197 N.W. 667, 668 (1924) (judge’s answer to jury questions after jury entered deliberations requires defendant’s presence). 1999Cf. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 739-40 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987) (distinguishing competency hearing as a “pretrial proceeding” and therefore not a stage of trial is not helpful as it does not take into account the hearing’s direct impact on the trial); State v. Grey, 256 N.W.2d 74, 76-77 (Minn.1977) (a pretrial suppression hearing is a stage of trial); State v. Staveneau, 158 Minn. 329, 330-31 , 197 N.W. 667, 668 (1924) (judge’s answer to jury questions after jury entered deliberations requires defendant’s presence). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co.
green
2 sentences1988Appellant claims that the trial court erred by denying a post-trial hearing pursuant to Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , 104 N.W.2d 301 (1960). 1988Appellant claims that the trial court erred by denying a post-trial hearing pursuant to Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , 104 N.W.2d 301 (1960). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.