DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash, 141 N.W.2d 3.

212 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Danielle Lynn DeMarais Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Danielle Lynn DeMarais Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 550-51, see also State v. Pederson–Maxwell, (noting that “[i]n order for constitutional challenges to the admission of evidence to be timely, objections to such evidence must be raised at the omnibus hearing” in the form of a pretrial motion to suppre
  • State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 554
  • State v. Pederson-Maxwell 619 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Pederson-Maxwell 619 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    See State ex rel Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 555
  • State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner 617 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Thole 614 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Thole 614 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    Ras *236 mussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 551 , (defining plain error as any error where failure to reverse would “perpetuate a substantial and essential injustice in the sense that as a result an innocent man may have been convicted”).
  • State v. Thoma 569 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Lieberg 553 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Lieberg 553 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 550 , (providing that the failure to make a timely constitutional challenge to the admission of evidence generally operates as a waiver and recognizing an exception only if application of this rule would “perpetuate a substantial and essential injustice in the sense that * * * an innocent [per
  • State v. Nelson 483 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Nelson 483 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 553-55 , -14 (1966).
  • City of St. Louis Park v. Berg 433 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1988
  • City of St. Louis Park v. Berg 433 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1988
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 554
  • State v. Johnson 422 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Johnson 422 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 550 , (failure to object waives right to appeal admission of evidence).
  • State v. Feehan 412 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Feehan 412 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    7.01; State ex rel Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539
  • State v. Marshall 411 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Marshall 411 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 555 , pet.
  • State v. Burns 390 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Reynolds 386 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Reynolds 386 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State ex rel Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 550
  • State v. Muzik 379 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Muzik 379 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 554 , -14 (1965).
  • State v. Banks 379 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Banks 379 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State ex rel Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 550
  • State v. Brunes 373 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Brunes 373 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State ex rel Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 555
  • Coraline v. State 363 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Coraline v. State 363 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539 , Minn.R.Crim.P.
  • In Re Welfare of A.B.L. 358 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • In Re Welfare of A.B.L. 358 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    -15 (Minn.1965): [T]he steps which have been suggested as a method of dealing with evidence of this type will indicate to counsel and to the trial courts that the pretrial consideration of other evidentiary problems, the resolution of which is needed to assure the integrity of the trial when conducted, will be most
  • State v. Berkelman 355 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Berkelman 355 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1984
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 554 , -14 (1965), to show that the contested evidence, in this case the prior conviction, was obtained consistent with constitutional requirements.” d at 905 .
  • State v. McGath 352 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. McGath 352 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 551
  • State v. Heidelberger 353 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Heidelberger 353 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 550
  • In Re the Welfare of J.P.L. 359 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • In Re the Welfare of J.P.L. 359 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539 , Minn.R.Crim.P.
  • State v. Medenwaldt 341 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Medenwaldt 341 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 554 , -14 (1965), to show that the contested evidence, in this case the prior conviction, was obtained consistent with constitutional requirements.
  • State v. Nordstrom 331 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Nordstrom 331 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1983
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 554 , -14 (1965), to show that the contested evidence, in this case the prior conviction, was obtained consistent with constitutional requirements.
  • State v. Malaski 330 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Malaski 330 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1983
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 551 , we stated that we could reverse on the basis of trial error notwithstanding a failure by the defense counsel to object to any of the error if failure to reverse would “perpetuate a substantial and essential injustice in the sense that as a result an innocent man may have been convicted.
  • State v. Beard 288 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1980