Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rainer, 103 N.W.2d 389.

44 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. 2025
We have recognized two distinct kinds of dicta: “obiter dicta” and “judicial dicta.”
Thomas Gabor Gratzer, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(explaining that appellate courts “are bound to [their] prior statements or rulings on an issue only when the statement or ruling was necessary to the decision in the case”); (stating that “a ruling not necessary to the decision of a case can be regarded as only dictum” (quotation omitted)).
Complaint Decision File 24-162C on behalf of K.W.S. from Hermantown 0700-01. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“[A] ruling not necessary to the decision of a case can be regarded as only ‘dictum.’”).
Complaint Decision File 24-170C on behalf of L.L.B. from Delano 0879-01. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“[A] ruling not necessary to the decision of a case can be regarded as only ‘dictum.’”).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Judicial dictum, however, is “an expression of opinion on a question directly involved and argued by counsel though not entirely necessary to the decision.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
n.4 (Minn. 2018) (“[W]hen we have expressed an opinion on a question directly involved and argued by counsel, even if that opinion is not entirely necessary to the decision, it ‘should not be lightly disregarded.’ ” 9 ()).
James Aeshliman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC , (“Of course, a ruling not necessary to the decision of a case can be regarded as only dictum.” ()).
Ellis v. Doe 915 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ellis v. Doe 915 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Rainer , 258 Minn. 168 , 179, , 396 (1960) ("Of course, a ruling not necessary to the decision of a case can be regarded as only dictum.").
State v. Atwood 914 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Atwood 914 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
" Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC , , 611 (Minn. 2016) (quoting State v. Rainer , 258 Minn. 168 , 179, , 396 (1960) ).
Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
(citing State v. Rainer , 258 Minn. 168 , , 396 (Minn. 1960) ) ).
A16-1527 Minn. 2018
See State v. Hess , n.6 (Minn. 2004) (“Conside rations made in a judicial opinion that are unnecessary to the decision in the case are dicta.” ( )).
State v. Heinonen 909 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2018
State v. Heinonen 909 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2018
State v. Rainer , 258 Minn. 168 , , 396 (1960).
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
See State v. Rainer , 258 Minn. 168 , , 395-96 (1960) (noting that dicta in a Minnesota Supreme Court case "should not be lightly disregarded[,]" particularly when it is "an expression of opinion on a question directly involved and argued by counsel though not entirely necessary to the decision"); see, e.g. , State v. Fenney , d
Gary Otremba, Heidi L. Moegerle v. City of East Bethel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gary Otremba, Heidi L. Moegerle v. City of East Bethel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See State v. Rainer, 258 Minn. 168, 178, d 389, 396 (1960); State by Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 208
Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Financial, LLC 884 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2016
Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Financial, LLC 884 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2016
See State v. Rainer, 258 Minn. 168, 179, (“Of course, a ruling not necessary to the decision of a case can be regarded as only dictum.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); State ex rel.
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(“Obiter dictum is a judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential.” (quotation omitted)); see also State v. Rainer, 258 Minn. 168, 177-78 , -96 (1960) (discussing obiter and judicial dicta).
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
John Ward Gillman Engraved June 20, 1775 Copper Printing Plate v. Heritage Auctions, Inc. 806 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
John Ward Gillman Engraved June 20, 1775 Copper Printing Plate v. Heritage Auctions, Inc. 806 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Obiter dictum is Latin for “something said in passing,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1177 (9th ed. 2009), whereas judicial dictum involves a court’s expression of its “opinion on a question directly involved and argued by counsel though not entirely necessary to the decision,” State v. Rainer, 258 Minn. 168, 177
State v. Fleming 724 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Fleming 724 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See State v. Rainer, 258 Minn. 168, 177 , (stating that judicial dictum is entitled to “much greater weight than mere obiter dictum and should not be lightly disregarded”).
Brink v. Smith Companies Construction, Inc. 703 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Brink v. Smith Companies Construction, Inc. 703 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Judicial dictum involves a court’s expression of its “opinion on a question directly involved and argued by counsel though not entirely necessary to the decision.” State v. Rainer, 258 Minn. 168, 177
State Ex Rel. Department of Natural Resources v. Hess 684 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
State Ex Rel. Department of Natural Resources v. Hess 684 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
See State v. Rainer, 258 Minn. 168, 178
State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
"[TJhere is a distinction between 'ob-iter dictum' and 'judicial dictum,’ the latter constituting an expression emanating from the judicial conscience and the responsibilities that go with it.” State v. Rainer, 258 Minn. 168, 178
In Re Estate of Bush 224 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1974
Lee v. Arrowood 224 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1974
Lee v. Arrowood 224 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1974
In the case of State v. Rainer, 258 Minn. 168, 177 , we said: “It seems clearly apparent that the statement and the reasoning in [State v. Lund, 174 Minn. 194 , ], even though this court in [State v. Nobles, 234 Minn. 38 , ] referred to it as merely dictum, was an expression of opinion on a q
In Re Estate of Bush 224 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1974
In the case of State v. Rainer, 258 Minn. 168, 177 , we said: "It seems clearly apparent that the statement and the reasoning in [State v. Lund, 174 Minn. 194 , 218 N.W.
State v. Hartman 136 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1965
State v. Hartman 136 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1965
2 Cf. State v. Rainer, 258 Minn. 168, 177 , 103 N. W. (2d) 389, 395 .
State ex rel. Searles v. Tahash 136 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1965
State ex rel. Searles v. Tahash 136 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1965
See, State v. Rainer, 258 Minn. 168, 175 , 103 N. W. (2d) 389, 394 ; State v. Larson, 171 Minn. 246, 248 , ; 22 Minn L. Rev. 734; Kadish, The Advocate and the Expert — Counsel in the PenoCorrectional Process, 45 Minn. L. Rev. 803 , 806; Barrett, Allocution, 9 Mo.