Cited by

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

92 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kyle Adam Bruce, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Adam Bruce, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The district court thereafter issued an order addressing the four factors set forth by the supreme court in Shetsky v. Hennepin County (In re Shetsky), and partially granted the petition, reinstating and discharging $50,000 of the $100,000 bond.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
notification of the hearing date through an automated appointment reminder voice messaging system.” On March 12, after it learned of Parker’s nonappearance, Midwest Bonding “immediately began investigative efforts to locate [Parker] and return [him] to the jurisdiction and custody of the Court.” According to Midwest Bonding, its investigative 1 Shetsky v. Hennepin County (In re Shetsky)
Minn. 2024
2d 237, 244 (Minn. 2005) (
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Guinn’s next hearing was scheduled for 1
State of Minnesota v. Marquis Deonte Gardner, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Marquis Deonte Gardner, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Shetsky v. Hennepin County (In re Shetsky)
State of Minnesota v. Brian Lee Hall, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Brian Lee Hall, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(citing Shetsky v. Hennepin County (In re Shetsky), ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Askland quotes the four factors set out in for evaluating petitions for bond reinstatement: (A) the purpose of bail, (B) the good faith of the bond company as measured by the fault or willfulness of the defendant; (C) the good faith efforts of the bond company to apprehend and produce the defendant, and (D) the prejudice to the state in i
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(establishing a four-factor test for evaluating petitions for bond reinstatement).
In re the Marriage of: Cory Michael Bayer, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(applying the factors established in Shetsky v. Hennepin County (In re Shetsky ), ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In making its determination, a district court’s decision is guided by four factors identified in In re Shetsky , (the Shetsky factors).
A21-0873 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In considering a petition for reinstatement a nd discharge of bail, the district court considered the fact ors identified in In re Shetsky
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But in considering a petition for reinstatement and discharge of bail, the district court must consider the four factors identified in
A20-0592 A20-0594 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The district court considered the four factors set forth by the supreme court in Shetsky v. Hennepin County (In re Shetsky) , granted Midwest’s petition in part , reinstated and discharged $5,000 of the bond , and imposed a $14,000 penalty.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
2 Shetsky v. Hennepin County (In re Shetsky)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Application of Shetsky, (stating that dual purpose of bail is to release the defendant from imprisonment pending trial and ensure the defendant’s appearance at trial).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5 In In re Shetsky , t he supreme court identified four factors (the Shetsky factors) to “guid [e] the exercise” of a district court’s discretion in considering to reinstate a bond.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating district court’s inherent power to remit forfeited bond may be exercised, not only before payment of forfeited bond, but also thereafter upon showing of no prejudice to state); ( reversing district court’s denial of petition fo
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
–33 (Minn. App. 2009) (reversing the district court order reinstating 2 In In re Application of Shetsky , 239 Minn. 463, 471, the supreme court explained that, in determining whether a surety ought to forfeit a portion of a bond, the following factors are relevant: (1) the purpose of the bail, the civil nature of the proceedings, and the cause, pur pose, and length of the defendant’s absence; (2) the good
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Askland , (citing In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 471, ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re Application of Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 471
A16-2003 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Appellant argued that the four-factor test from In re Application of Shetsky , 239 Minn. 463, 471, favored reinstatement of the bond.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 471, d 40, 46 (1953).
State of Minnesota v. Donalonte Jamar Wade, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donalonte Jamar Wade, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing In re Application of Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 471, ).
State of Minnesota v. Jose C. Garcia Delaharran, Griffin Bail Bonds, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose C. Garcia Delaharran, Griffin Bail Bonds, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quoting Storkamp, d at 542 (quoting In re Application of Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 471, )).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Marie Stellmach, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Marie Stellmach, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quoting In re Application of Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 471, ).
State of Minnesota v. Draveetray Lyrell Williams, (A14-0696), Lawrence Craig Ogris, (A14-0705), Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Draveetray Lyrell Williams, (A14-0696), Lawrence Craig Ogris, (A14-0705), Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Midwest argued that the factors from Shetsky v. Hennepin County (In re Shetsky), 239 Minn. 463, weighed in favor of full reimbursement.
State of Minnesota v. Alberto Villa-Barrera, Ability Bonding Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alberto Villa-Barrera, Ability Bonding Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In determining whether the district court abused its discretion, this court considers the factors set forth by In re Application of Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 471, : (1) the purpose of bail, the civil nature of the proceedings, and the cause, purpose, and length of the defendant’s absence; (2) the good faith of the surety as measured by the fault or willfulness of the defendant; (3) the good-faith
State v. Mulcahy 816 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Mulcahy 816 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
at 62 (citing In re Shetshy, 239 Minn. 463, 471 , ).
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 813 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2012
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 813 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2012
Therefore, we presume that statutes are consistent with the common law, In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 469 , and do not presume that the Legislature intends to abrogate or modify a common law rule except to the extent expressly declared or clearly indicated in the statute, Do v. Am.
Siewert v. Northern States Power Co. 793 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2011
Siewert v. Northern States Power Co. 793 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2011
First, we presume that the Legislature does not intend to abrogate the common law unless it does so “by express wording or necessary implication.” -78 (Minn.1990) (citing In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 469 , ).
State v. Askland 784 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2010
State v. Ashland 784 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2010
State v. Ashland 784 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2010
See In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 471