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 1992–2025 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. Caldwellgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Caldwell, 803 N.W.2d 373 , 389 n.6 (Minn. 2011) (explaining that the truncated recitation of the test in Warren “does not remove ‘not cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful’ from what must be proved”). | 1 | 1 |
Odegard v. Finnegreen1 sentence2015Hubbard, 330 N.W.2d at 438-39 ; Odegard v. Finne, 500 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Minn. App. 1993) (affirming grant of summary judgment to defendant on IIED claim because plaintiff “failed to present any evidence linking her alleged damages to any actions” of defendant). | 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. Griller
green
2 sentences2013The defendant has the burden of proof on the third element of the test, and it is considered a “ ‘heavy burden.’ ” Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 302 (quoting Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741 ). 2012The defendant has the burden of proof on the third element of the test, and it is considered a “heavy burden.” Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741 . | 3 | 2012–2013 |
State v. Ramey
green
2 sentences2013The defendant has the burden of proof on the third element of the test, and it is considered a “ ‘heavy burden.’ ” Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 302 (quoting Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741 ). 2012The defendant has the burden of proof on the third element of the test, and it is considered a “ ‘heavy burden.’ ” Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 302 (quoting Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741 ). | 2 | 2012–2013 |
Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015Hubbard, 330 N.W.2d at 438-39 ; Odegard v. Finne, 500 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Minn. App. 1993) (affirming grant of summary judgment to defendant on IIED claim because plaintiff “failed to present any evidence linking her alleged damages to any actions” of defendant). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Demers v. City of Minneapolis
green
1 sentence1992The same parties were involved in Demers v. City of Mpls., 468 N.W.2d 71 (Minn.1991). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.