6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 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 v. Paigegreen2 sentences2018"Once the defendant has come forward initially with evidence of the permit, the state's difficulty in 'proving a negative' is alleviated, making it reasonable for the state to disprove the defense." Id. at 304 . 1995By placing on the defendant an initial burden of production, "the state's difficulty in ‘proving a negative’ is alleviated, making it reasonable for the state to disprove the defense.” State v. Paige, 256 N.W.2d 298, 304 (Minn.1977), cited in Charlton, 338 N.W.2d at 31 . . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Charltongreen2 sentences1995By placing on the defendant an initial burden of production, "the state's difficulty in ‘proving a negative’ is alleviated, making it reasonable for the state to disprove the defense.” State v. Paige, 256 N.W.2d 298, 304 (Minn.1977), cited in Charlton, 338 N.W.2d at 31 . . 1995Laski 1916-1935 738 (Mark DeWolfe Howe ed., 1953); Silas Bent, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes 197 (1932). [8] By placing on the defendant an initial burden of production, "the state's difficulty in `proving a negative' is alleviated, making it reasonable for the state to disprove the defense." State v. Paige, 256 N.W.2d 298, 304 (Minn.1977), cited in Charlton, 338 N.W.2d at 31 . [9] The justification statutes discussed in State v. Boyce are Minnesota Statutes §§ 609.06-.065 (1994). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Radkegreen1 sentence2024Compare State v. Radke, 821 N.W.2d 316, 325 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that the defendant’s self-defense claim failed because the State disproved that the defendant was not the initial aggressor), with Basting, 572 N.W.2d at 286 (concluding that the district court did not err when it found that the defendant did not act in self-defense in part because it “could have determined that [the defendant] used more force than was necessary”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bastinggreen1 sentence2024Compare State v. Radke, 821 N.W.2d 316, 325 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that the defendant’s self-defense claim failed because the State disproved that the defendant was not the initial aggressor), with Basting, 572 N.W.2d at 286 (concluding that the district court did not err when it found that the defendant did not act in self-defense in part because it “could have determined that [the defendant] used more force than was necessary”). | 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. Auchampach
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 816-17 n. 7. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.