Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Huber, 148 N.W.2d 137.

55 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. M. A. and M. J. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. M. A. and M. J. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. David Powers Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. David Powers Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The amount of bail to be fixed in a particular case rests within the discretion of the [district] court and its determination will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: G.A.H. and S.T., Parents (A22-1065). In the Matter … Minn. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: G.A.H. and S.T., Parents (A22-1065). In the Matter … Minn. 2023
See Ungar, 376 U.S. at 590–91 (observing that the party seeking the continuance had time to take steps to hire counsel, obtain needed evidence, and prepare for the hearing); –59 (Minn. 1977) (considering among other factors that the defendant waited until the eve of trial to substitute counsel); (considering among other factors that defendant could have located private counsel in the 3 months he was in custody prior to trial); T.D.F., d at 775 (concluding the district court abused its discretion
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 481
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Exom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Exom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
ce, (affirming denial of continuance requested a few days before trial because public defender was competent); State v. Ahearn, 292 Minn. 449, 450, (affirming denial of continuance requested the day before trial because there was no substantial basis for dissatisfaction or distrust with defendants’ appointed counsel); State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 480–81, –42 (1967) (affirming denial of continuance requested the day before trial because defendant gave no indication he was denied opportunity to
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Crum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Crum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ble public defender who had thoroughly investigated the facts and was prepared for trial”); State v. Ahearn, 292 Minn. 449, 450, (finding no abuse of discretion where district court denied a motion for a continuance the day before trial when there was “no substantial basis” for “dissatisfaction” or “distrust” with the defendants’ appointed counsel); State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 478-79, -41 (1967) (finding no abuse of discretion where district court denied a motion for a continuance the day bef
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The amount of bail to be fixed in a particular case rests within the discretion of the [district] court and its determination will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 478
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 478
Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 478
State v. Martin 743 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2008
State v. Martin 743 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2008
“The amount of bail to be fixed in a particular case rests within the discretion of the trial court and its determination will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 478
State v. Arens 586 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1998
State v. Arens 586 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1998
We have long recognized that “in the absence of extraordinary circumstances * * * questions concerning the amount of defendant’s pretrial bail are moot after conviction.” State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 478 , see also State v. Jones, 311 Minn. 176, 184-85 , State v. Beltowski, 281 Minn. 28, 33 , , cert.
State v. Whitcomb 413 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Whitcomb 413 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 478
City of Grand Rapids v. Jarvi 410 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
City of Grand Rapids v. Jarvi 410 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See generally State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 481 , -142 (1967).
State v. Chamblee 407 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Chamblee 407 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 478
Wanglie v. State 398 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wanglie v. State 398 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 481 , the supreme court noted that the general rule is, “[I]n cases where a convicted defendant urges that a new trial be ordered because the court refused to grant a continuance * * * the matter is within the discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will reverse only for a cle
State v. Beveridge 277 N.W.2d 198 Minn. 1979
State v. Beveridge 277 N.W.2d 198 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295 , d *199 261 (1970); and State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475
State v. Gilbert 268 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1978
State v. Gilbert 268 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1978
State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, State v. Mohrbacher, 173 Minn. 567 , 218 N.W.
State v. Bailey 262 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1977
State v. Bailey 262 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1977
State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475
In Re Welfare of T. D. F. 258 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1977
In Re Welfare of T. D. F. 258 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1977
State v. Vance, Minn., State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475
State v. Johnson 256 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1977
State v. Johnson 256 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1977
The denial of a continuance will only be reversed on appeal where “the defendant has been in some manner embarrassed or prejudiced in preparing his defense so as to materially affect the outcome of the trial.” State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 481
State v. Vance 254 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1977
State v. Vance 254 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1977
State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475
State v. Bauer 245 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1976
State v. Bauer 245 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1976
Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 , 95 S. Ct. 2525 , 45 L. ed. 2d 562 (1975); cf. State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475
State v. Chytracek 196 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1972
State v. Chytracek 196 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1972
The action of the trial court in exercising its discretion to deny substitution of attorneys under the circumstances is supported by State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295 , and State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475
State v. Ahearn 194 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1972
State v. Ahearn 194 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1972
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295 , State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475
State v. Fagerstrom 176 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1970

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by