Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Shetsky, 60 N.W.2d 40.

92 citing documents.

State v. Askland 784 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2010
See In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 471
State v. Rodriguez 775 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Rodriguez 775 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Shetsky v. Hennepin County, 239 Minn. 463, 471 , see also Minn.Stat.
State v. Nelson 773 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Nelson 773 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Although we reverse, we conclude that remand is necessary so that the district court may revisit its forfeiture determination in light of the factors set forth in In re Application of Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463
State v. Vang 763 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Vang 763 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Shetsky v. Hennepin County (In re Shetsky), 239 Minn. 463, 471
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dynamic Air, Inc. 702 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 2005
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dynamic Air, Inc. 702 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 2005
In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 469
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 2004
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 2004
“We have * * * long presumed that statutes are consistent with the common law, and if a statute abrogates the common law, the abrogation must be by express wording or necessary implication.” (citing In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 469 , ).
State v. Storkamp 656 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2003
State v. Storkamp 656 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2003
The court of appeals affirmed based on its reading of Shetsky v. Hennepin County (In Re Shetsky), 239 Minn. 463, 471 , holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Minnesota Equal Access Network Services v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad 646 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Means v. BURLINGTON NO. & SANTA FE R. CO. 646 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Means v. BURLINGTON NO. & SANTA FE R. CO. 646 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, e.g., In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 469
Minnesota Equal Access Network Services v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad 646 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, e.g., In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 469
State v. Rosillo 645 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Rosillo 645 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In re Application of Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 471
Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom 615 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2000
Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom 615 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2000
See In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 469
State v. Brooks 604 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2000
Harold Farsdale, State of Minnesota v. Oscar Rios Martinez 586 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Farsdale v. Martinez 586 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Harold Farsdale, State of Minnesota v. Oscar Rios Martinez 586 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
“The purpose of a * * * bail bond is to secure the attendance of the accused in order that all questions touching upon his guilt or innocence may be determined.” Shetsky v. Hennepin County, 239 Minn. 463, 470, see State v. Super, 281 Minn. 451, 461, -39 (1968) (purpose of bail is to “reconcile the defendant’s interest in pretrial liberty with the need for assurance he will return for trial”); State v. Mastrian, 266 Minn. 58, 59, (purpose of bail is
Farsdale v. Martinez 586 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
“The purpose of a * ⅜ * bail bond is to secure the attendance of the accused in order that all questions touching upon his guilt or innocence may be determined.” Shetsky v. Hennepin County, 239 Minn. 463, 470 , see State v. Super, 281 Minn. 451, 461 , -39 (1968) (purpose of bail is to “reconcile the defendant’s interest in pretrial liberty with the need for assurance he will return for trial”); State v. Mastrian, 266 Minn. 58, 59 , (purpose of bail
State v. Williams 568 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Williams 568 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Shetsky v. Hennepin County (In re Application of Shetsky), 239 Minn. 463, 471-72 , see Minn. Stat. § 629.59 (1996) (providing when penalty on bail bond is judged forfeited, trial court “may forgive or reduce the penalty * * * on any terms and conditions it considers just and reasonable”).
Anderson v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Anderson v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Id.; see also In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 469
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 461 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 461 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1990
In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 469
State v. Due 427 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Due 427 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
It then considered the various factors in Application of Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463 , relating to whether a forfeited bond should be forgiven, and concluded that Interstate had not met its burden of proof to establish justification for mitigation of forfeited bond.
Washington County v. Goldberg Bonding, Inc. 388 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Washington County v. Goldberg Bonding, Inc. 388 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Application of Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 471
Matter of Estate of Kroyer 385 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Matter of Estate of Kroyer 385 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Shetsky v. Hennepin County, 239 Minn. 463, 469
State v. Super 161 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1968
State v. Super 161 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1968
For other authorities involving bail and its forfeiture, see In re Application of Shetsky for Return of Bail Money, 239 Minn. 463 , 60 N. W. (2d) 40 ; State v. Mastrian, 266 Minn. 58 , 122 N. W. (2d) 621 , certiorari denied, 375 U. S. 942 , 84 S. Ct. 349 , 11 L. ed. (2d) 274.
State v. Mastrian 122 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1963
State v. Mastrian 122 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1963
4 In re Application of Shetsky for Return of Bail Money, 239 Minn. 463 , 60 N. W. (2d) 40 .