Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Thompson v. State, 170 N.W.2d 101.

49 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Trimell Cornell Chamberlain Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Trimell Cornell Chamberlain Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In addition, “An appellate court will not consider abstract or unnecessarily general questions which might result in one answer to one set of circumstances but another answer to a different set of circumstances.”
Joshua Chiazor Ezeka, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Joshua Chiazor Ezeka, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
to permit a petitioner to embark upon unlimited and undefined discovery proceedings.”
A17-1650 A17-1651 A17-1652 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Thompson v. State , 284 Minn. 274, 277, 170 (“An appellate court will not consider abstract or unnecessarily general questions which might result in one answer to one set of circumstances but another answer to a different set of circumstances.”).
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Second, Minnesota Statutes, chapter 590, “does not provide the district court with a procedural vehicle to address the administrative decisions of the Commissioner.” Id.; see Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 278, (explaining that Minnesota Statutes sections 590.01–.06 “were enacted to provide a postconviction remedy by which a defendant may attack the judgment of conviction”); Rainer, d at 696 (holding that “constitutional claims against the [DOC’s] deduction of room and board costs
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277, -04 (1969).
State v. Knoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Enoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Enoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The supreme court has stated, “The certification should be carefully and precisely framed so as to present distinctly and clearly the question of law in-volved_” Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277
State v. Knoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277
Hoffman v. Northern States Power Co. 764 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 2009
Hoffman v. Northern States Power Co. 764 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 2009
This case therefore presents a situation appropriate for certification because "the record is developed to the point where the question is relevant and presents a substantive issue.” Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
” Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277
State v. Tennin 674 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2004
State v. Tennin 674 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2004
“A certified question ‘should be carefully and precisely framed so as to present distinctly and clearly the question of law involved.’ ” (quoting Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277 , ).
State v. Larivee 656 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2003
State v. Larivee 656 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2003
A certified question “should be carefully and precisely framed so as to present distinctly and clearly the question of law involved.” Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277
Rainer v. State 566 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1997
Rainer v. State 566 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1997
Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277-78 , (the Postconvietion Remedy Act was enacted to provide a postconvietion remedy by which a defendant may attack the judgment of conviction).
State v. Saunders 542 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Saunders 542 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
“The certification should be carefully and precisely framed so as to present distinctly and clearly the question of law involved * * Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277
State v. Brink 500 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Brink 500 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277
State v. Jennings 487 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Jennings 487 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277
In Re the Proposed Suspension, Revocation or Non-Renewal of the Nursing Home Licenses of Parkway Manor Healthcare Center 448 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Proposed Suspension, Revocation or Non-Renewal of the Nursing Home Licenses of Parkway Manor Healthcare Center 448 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Appellants also cite Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274 , as instances of judicial creation of evidentiary privileges.
Duxor Investment Aktiengesellschaft v. Investment Rarities Inc. 413 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1987
Duxor Investment Aktiengesellschaft v. Investment Rarities Inc. 413 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1987
See Rude v. Rude, 283 Minn. 524, 525 , see also Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277
Jablonski v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 408 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1987
Jablonski v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 408 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1987
See e.g., Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277 , Rude v. Rude, 283 Minn. 524, 525
Gruening v. Pinotti 364 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Gruening v. Pinotti 364 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277 , quoted in F & H *910 Investment, 305 Minn. at 158 , d at 772 .
State v. Babcock 360 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Babcock 360 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
26 n. 1 (Minn.1978); Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277
State v. Kvale 352 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Kvale 352 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Our exercise of discretion against review coincides with a view on certified questions stated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274
State v. Wicks 258 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 1977
State v. Wicks 258 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 1977
The question is properly certified under the criteria which we discussed in Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274 , : It does not present a hypothetical question or request an advisory opinion but will have an immediate effect on the prosecution which has been stayed pending our determination; it does not require us to assume a set of facts not on the record; it was distinctly and clearly presented on the bas
State v. Filipovic 251 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1977
State v. Filipovic 251 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1977
Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274 , State v. Moller, 276 Minn. 185
F. & H. Investment Co. v. Sackman-Gilliland Corp. 232 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1975
F. & H. Investment Co. v. Sackman-Gilliland Corp. 232 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1975
632.10, stated Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277 , : “* * * The certification should be carefully and precisely framed so as to present distinctly and clearly the question of law involved and should not be presented until the record is developed to the point where the question is relevant and presents a substantive issue.
Morrissey v. State 174 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1970
Morrissey v. State 174 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1970
Dinneen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 7 , 136 N. W. (2d) 847 ; Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274 , 170 N. W. (2d) 101 .