Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Collins v. Bridgland, 206 N.W.2d 652.

21 citing documents.

Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
See, (concluding that a “15-year delay in seeking post-conviction relief’ was fatal to the defendant’s petition); Houghton v. State, 296 Minn. 494, 495 , (per curiam) (concluding that a 46-year delay in bringing a postconviction petition precluded relief); Gaulke v. State, 296 Minn. 487, 487 , (per curiam) (denying defendant’s postconviction petition where he had delayed bringing the petition for 25 years).
Stutelberg v. State 741 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2007
Likewise, in Gaulke v. State, we affirmed the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief because the petitioner, who waited 25 years to file his petition after allegedly learning of new evidence, “did not act with due diligence in seeking relief.” 296 Minn. 487 , 487, , 652 (1973).
James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
d [318,] 322 [(Minn.1996)] (citing Gaulke v. State, 296 Minn. 487, 487 , (relief denied based on 25-year delay)).
Butala v. State 664 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 2003
Rairdon, d at 322 (citing Gaulke v. State, 296 Minn. 487, 487 , (relief denied based on 25-year delay)).
Boitnott v. State 640 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2002
Gaulke v. State, 296 Minn. 487, 487 , *630
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Collins v. Bridgland, 296 Minn. 93, 96-97 , -55 (1973) (upholding district court’s refusal to conduct jury-misconduct hearing when a juror did not affirmatively respond to question of whether any juror had an interest in State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, even though juror’s husband *394 had leasing arrangement with State Farm and
Sutherlin v. State 574 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1998
296 Minn. 487 , 487, , 652 (1973).
Black v. State 560 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1997
See Jones v. State, 288 Minn. 527, 529 , see also Gaulke v. State, 296 Minn. 487, 487 , (dismissing after 25-year delay).
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
Although there may be extreme cases in which an excessive delay, without excuse, may alone justify denial of postconvietion relief, see Gaulke v. State, 296 Minn. 487, 487 , (per curiam) (denying relief based on the petitioner’s 25-year delay from the time that the petitioner became aware of newly discovered evidence), we again emphasize that convicted defendants are generally entitled to at least one right of review.
Bailey v. State 414 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See, e.g., Houghton v. State, 296 Minn. 494 , (it was proper for the trial court to deny relief where over 46 years elapsed before petitioner asserted his rights); Gaulke v. State, 296 Minn. 487 , (court properly denied relief on the ground that petitioner, who knew about the allegedly newly discovered evidence for 25 years, did not act with due diligence in seeking relief).
Ruppert v. Yaeger 414 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ruppert v. Yaeger 414 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Collins v. Bridgland, 296 Minn. 93, 96
State v. Larson 409 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The trial court concluded otherwise, citing Houghton v. State, 296 Minn. 494 , (proper to deny relief when petitioner waited 46 years before asserting his rights); Gaulke v. State, 296 Minn. 487 , (delay not justified when petitioner knew of newly discovered evidence 25 years prior to his petition); Jones v. State, 288 Minn. 527 , (16 years not necessary to discover guilty plea to wrong *65 charge).
Lines v. Ryan 272 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1978
Lines v. Ryan 272 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1978
Rule 411, Rules of Evidence; Collins v. Bridgland, 296 Minn. 93
Mesojedec v. Smith 260 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1977
Mesojedec v. Smith 260 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1977
Collins v. Bridgland, 296 Minn. 93
Hagen v. Swenson 236 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1975
Hagen v. Swenson 236 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1975
See, Collins v. Bridg-land, 296 Minn. 93
Gaulke v. State 206 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1973