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 v. Kindem 338 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 1983
    White v. State, 309 Minn. 476
  • State v. Heinkel 322 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Heinkel 322 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1982
    The appropriate standard for this court to apply is set forth in White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481
  • State v. Berry 309 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Berry 309 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1981
    145 , 54 L.Ed.2d 109 (1977); quoted in White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 480
  • Matter of Welfare of Hartung 304 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1981
  • Matter of Welfare of Hartung 304 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1981
    White v. State, 309 Minn. 476
  • State v. Marburger 299 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Marburger 299 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1980
    White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 479
  • State v. Mendoza 297 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Mendoza 297 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1980
    White v. State, 309 Minn. 476 , State v. White, 300 Minn. 99
  • Ani v. State 288 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1980
  • Ani v. State 288 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1980
    We hold that the postconvietion court, after applying the appropriate standard — see White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 479 , — properly ruled that petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving ineffective assistance.
  • State v. Rossbach 288 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Rossbach 288 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 1980
    Petitioner has failed to prove ineffective assistance, see White v. State, 309 Minn. 476 , and has failed to demonstrate that the trial court either erred in denying a continuance or that the error was prejudicial.
  • State v. Ochalla 285 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Ochalla 285 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1979
    Under these circumstances, we conclude that the postconviction court, after applying the appropriate standard — see, White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 479 , — properly ruled that petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proving ineffective assistance.
  • Peterson v. State 282 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1979
  • Peterson v. State 282 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1979
    The conduct of defense counsel in this case meets the standards we have established in White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 480
  • State v. Hyatt 281 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Hyatt 281 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1979
    With respect to the second issue, we have examined the record and find that the conduct of defense counsel in this case meets the standards we have established in White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 480
  • State v. King 262 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1978
  • State v. King 262 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1978
    Defendant argues for a new trial on the ground that he was ineffectively represented because, defense counsel failed to meet the “reasonably-competent-attorney” standard set forth in White v. State, Minn., pointing to counsel’s failure to request an instruction on the jury’s use of the character evidence.
  • In Re Welfare of T. D. F. 258 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1977
  • In Re Welfare of T. D. F. 258 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1977
    See generally, White v. State, Minn.
  • Carle v. State 257 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1977
  • Carle v. State 257 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1977
    On the contrary, the performance of the first attorney on Carle’s behalf far exceeded the standards for determining the adequacy of counsel established in White v. State, Minn.
  • State v. Miles 255 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Miles 255 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1977
    As we stated recently on petition for rehearing in White v. State, Minn., a defendant is entitled to “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” In the instant case the postconviction court considered defendant’s claim that he did not receive effective representatio