Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pearson v. State, 241 N.W.2d 490.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Tommy Eastman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Eastman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(quoting Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We also address Redford’s probation officer’s concern about whether the district court could revoke a stay of execution “without the defendant being present.” A defendant’s due-process rights during probation revocation are described in Pearson v. 10 State, based on Morrissey v Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) ( addressing parole-revocation hearings), and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (applying Morrissey to probation revocation).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Gagnon v. Scarpelli , 411 U.S. 778, 781-82 (1972)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
1-2 (requiring written notice of the allegations, the factual statements in support of the allegations, the rights to appointed counsel, a contested hearing, and appeal, among others); see also, (noting procedural requirements for probation violation hearings).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488-89, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 2603-04 (1972) (holding that the right to due process applies to parole-revocation proceedings); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782, 93 S. Ct. 1756, 1759-60 (1973) (extending Morrissey to probation-revocation proceedings); -93 (Minn. 1976) (applying the holdings of Morrissey and Gagnon to probation-revocation proceedings in Minnesota).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1-2 (requiring written notice of the allegations, the factual statements in support of the allegations, the rights to appointed counsel, a contested hearing, and appeal, among others); see also, d 490, 492 (Minn. 1976) (noting procedural requirements for probati on violation hearings).
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287, 289
State of Minnesota v. Travis William Mylo Cleary 882 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Travis William Mylo Cleary 882 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287, 289-90, (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S. Ct. 1756 (1973)).
State of Minnesota v. J.A.H. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. J.A.H. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Moreover, “[d]ue process requires that a defendant be given an opportunity to show that even if a condition of probation was violated, mitigating circumstances exist such that the violation does not warrant revocation.” (citing Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287, 289–90, ) (other citations omitted).
Cheng Pao Vue v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cheng Pao Vue v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Beaulieu, 2015 WL 446702, at *4 (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782, 93 S. Ct. 1756 (1973)); see also Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287, 289
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
See Cottew, d at 636 ; Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287, 289
State v. Cottew 746 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2008
State v. Cottew 746 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2008
Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287, 289-90 , (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct.
State v. Modtland 695 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2005
State v. Modtland 695 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2005
See Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287, 292
State v. Balma 549 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Balma 549 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Austin, d at 250 (citing Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287 , ) (holding that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the required finding).
State v. Hlavac 540 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Hlavac 540 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(citing Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287 , (holding that transcript of trial court’s findings provided sufficient record for appellate review)); review denied (Minn. July 20, 1995)
State v. Whitfield 483 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Whitfield 483 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287, 290 , Minn.R.Crim.P.
State v. Felix 410 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Felix 410 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287, 288
State v. Spanyard 358 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Spanyard 358 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
at 252 (citing Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287 , ).
State v. Austin 295 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 1980
State v. Austin 295 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 1980
Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287
State v. Neumann 262 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1978
State v. Neumann 262 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1978
See, Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287 , State ex rel.
State v. Goulette 258 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1977
State v. Goulette 258 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1977
See, e. g., Pearson v. State, Minn.