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 1913–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurraygreen2 sentences2024Because the language of the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 10 are substantially similar, “we will not construe the Minnesota Constitution as granting greater protection for individual rights unless there is a principled basis to do so.” State v. McMurray, 860 N.W.2d 686, 689-90 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted). 4 “[T]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” State v. Brown, 932 N.W.2d 283, 288-89 (Minn. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 , 381 (2014)). 2016Retrenchment With respect to retrenchment, “[t]he relevant inquiry ... is not whether the United States Supreme Court has retrenched on Bill of Rights issues generally but whether it has retrenched on the specific Bill of Rights issue at hand.” McMurray, 860 N.W.2d at 691-92 . | 2 | 3 |
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstromgreen2 sentences2015When the text of our state constitution is materially identical to the federal constitution, as it is here, we have construed the Minnesota Constitution to provide greater protection than the United States Constitution: (1) when the United States Supreme Court “ ‘has made a sharp or radical departure from its previous decisions’ and we ‘discern no persuasive reason to follow such a departure’ (2) when the Court has “retrenched on a Bill of Rights issue”; or (3) when the Court precedent “ ‘does not adequately protect our citizens’ basic rights and liberties.’ ” Rew v. Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 764, 2015The relevant inquiry regarding retrenchment is not whether the United States Supreme Court has retrenched on Bill of Rights issues generally but whether it has retrenched on the specific Bill of Rights issue at hand — here, protection against warrantless searches. 5 See, e.g., Rew, 845 N.W.2d at 795 (interpreting the question of retrenchment as referring only to the specific Bill of Rights issue at hand). | 2 | 2 |
Kahn v. Griffingreen2 sentences2015When the text of our state constitution is materially identical to the federal constitution, as it is here, we have construed the Minnesota Constitution to provide greater protection than the United States Constitution: (1) when the United States Supreme Court “ ‘has made a sharp or radical departure from its previous decisions’ and we ‘discern no persuasive reason to follow such a departure’ ”; (2) when the Court has “retrenched on a Bill of Rights issue”; or (3) when the Court precedent “ ‘does not adequately protect our citizens’ basic rights and liberties.’ ” Rew v. Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 7 2015When the text of our state constitution is materially identical to the federal constitution, as it is here, we have construed the Minnesota Constitution to provide greater protection than the United States Constitution: (1) when the United States Supreme Court “ ‘has made a sharp or radical departure from its previous decisions’ and we ‘discern no persuasive reason to follow such a departure’ (2) when the Court has “retrenched on a Bill of Rights issue”; or (3) when the Court precedent “ ‘does not adequately protect our citizens’ basic rights and liberties.’ ” Rew v. Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 764, | 1 | 2 |
State v. Griffingreen1 sentence2024“A defendant’s rights to challenge any search under Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution are coextensive with the defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” State v. Griffin, 834 N.W.2d 688, 695-96 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2024Because the language of the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 10 are substantially similar, “we will not construe the Minnesota Constitution as granting greater protection for individual rights unless there is a principled basis to do so.” State v. McMurray, 860 N.W.2d 686, 689-90 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted). 4 “[T]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” State v. Brown, 932 N.W.2d 283, 288-89 (Minn. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 , 381 (2014)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hoffman v. Superior Court of S.F.
green
2 sentences1913St. 199, and in Hoffman v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. 386 , 90 Pac. 939 , as requiring the complainant “to designate and to serve as known claimants all whom with reasonable diligence he could ascertain to be claimants,” a construction which was said by Chief Justice White “in effect declared that the statute prohibited the omission of a known claim or claimant upon the conception that the rights of such claim or claimant would be foreclosed by the general designation and notice prescribed for unknown claimants.” This construction enabled the court to hold the act constitutional, as, when so con 1913St. 199, and in Hoffman v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. 386 , 90 Pac. 939 , as requiring the complainant “to designate and to serve as known claimants all whom with reasonable diligence he could ascertain to be claimants,” a construction which was said by Chief Justice White “in effect declared that the statute prohibited the omission of a known claim or claimant upon the conception that the rights of such claim or claimant would be foreclosed by the general designation and notice prescribed for unknown claimants.” This construction enabled the court to hold the act constitutional, as, when so con | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.