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 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 39 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety Anchor | green | “when the facts are not in dispute, the validity of a search is a question of law subject to de novo review.” | 18 |
| 2 | Bodana v. Cagle | green | “for a search to fall under the consent exception, the state must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant freely and voluntarily consented.” | 7 |
| 3 | City of Lake Elmo v. Metropolitan Council | green | “the preponderance of the evidence standard requires that to establish a fact, it must be more probable that the fact exists than that the contrary exists.” | 5 |
| 4 | Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety | green | “we independently analyze the undisputed facts to determine whether evidence resulting from the search should be suppressed.” | 4 |
| 5 | Bodana v. Cagle | green | “whether consent is voluntary is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances.” | 3 |
| 6 | Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety | green | “when reviewing the constitutionality of a search, we independently analyze the undisputed facts to determine whether evidence resulting from the search should be suppressed.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.