DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite White v. State, 248 N.W.2d 281.

79 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Bryant Wayne Paige Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota v. Bryant Wayne Paige Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    “[T]he standard for attorney competence is ‘representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.’” ().
  • State of Minnesota v. Marvel Galvaston Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Marvel Galvaston Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    Trial counsel’s performance is deficient when counsel “does not exercise the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quoting United States v. Easter, 539 F.2d 663, 666 (8th Cir. 1976)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    An attorney must exercise “the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” ().
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Trial counsel is deficient when counsel “does not exercise the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quoting United States v. Easter, 539 F.2d 663, 666 (8th Cir. 1976)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Trial counsel’s representation is deficien t when counsel “does not exercise the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quoting United States v. Easter, 539 F.2d 663, 666 (8th Cir. 1976)); d 531, 536 (Minn. 2007).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Trial counsel is deficient when counsel “does not exercise the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would pe rform under simila r circumstances.” (quoting United States v. Easter, 539 F.2d 663, 666 (8th Cir. 1976)).
  • A20-1588 Minn. 2021
    counsel failed “to use [a] computer forensic expert.” In arguing that the district court erred when it failed to order a 17 The objective standard of reasonableness means “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.”
  • Minn. 2020
    An attorney meets the objectively reas onable standard wh en the attorney “exercise[s] the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.”
  • State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
    The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as “ ‘representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar cir *267 cumstances.’ ” (quoting White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481 , ).
  • Leake v. State 767 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2009
  • Leake v. State 767 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2009
    The objective standard is defined as “ ‘representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.’” (quoting White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481 , ).
  • Opsahl v. State 677 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
  • Noske v. Friedberg 670 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2003
  • Noske v. Friedberg 670 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2003
    We have previously held that a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel does not necessarily “entail the success of a malpractice action against the defense attorney.” White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481
  • State v. Doppler 590 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Doppler 590 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1999
    In Minnesota, an attorney acts within the objective standard of reasonableness when he provides his client with “the representation of an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances.” (quoting White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481 , ).
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
    In Minnesota, the standard for attorney competence is “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar* circumstances.” White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481
  • State v. Case 412 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Case 412 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See White v. State, 309 Minn. 476 , (accused is entitled to representation by attorney “exercising the skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances”).
  • Weaver v. State 408 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Weaver v. State 408 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    As the supreme court stated in White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481 , : [T]he overall concern is limited to whether our adversary system of criminal justice has functioned properly.
  • Irwin v. State 400 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Irwin v. State 400 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (quoting White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481 , ).
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
    See, White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481
  • State v. Yant 376 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Yant 376 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Appellant has not met his “burden of proving facts showing incompetence of counsel by a fair preponderance of the evidence.” White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 479
  • State v. Garritsen 371 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Garritsen 371 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 480 , see Strickland v. Washington, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Walker 358 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Walker 358 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1984
    White v. State, 309 Minn. 476
  • State v. Eling 355 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Eling 355 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1984
    Effective assistance of counsel, we said in White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481 , is “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” To be reasonably effective, it is not required that representation by counsel obtain a favorable result, White, Id., but th
  • State v. Tiessen 354 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Tiessen 354 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Appellant claims his trial counsel did not exercise “the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 480
  • Sather v. State 352 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Sather v. State 352 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 480 , quoting U.S. v. Easter, 539 F.2d 663, 666 (8th Cir.1976).
  • State v. White 349 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. White 349 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The standard for evaluating competency of counsel is set forth in White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481
  • State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
    White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 480
  • State v. McLane 346 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. McLane 346 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 480 , (quoting United States v. Easter, 539 F.2d 663, 666 (8th Cir.1976)).
  • State v. Kirsch 338 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Kirsch 338 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1983
    White v. State, 309 Minn. 476
  • State v. Kindem 338 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 1983