DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Olsen, 258 N.W.2d 898.

50 citing documents.

  • State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    at 1178 n. 5; (stating, “we recognize that the effective representation by counsel, though a constitutional right, may be waived”).
  • State v. Walker 696 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Walker 696 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
    708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (discussing Linkletter); -07 (Minn.1977) (adopting procedural rule in dual-representation situation for defendants to be advised of their right to counsel and, citing Linkletter, 381 U.S. at 629 , 85 S.Ct.
  • State v. Misquadace 644 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Misquadace 644 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2002
    907 n. 15 (Minn.1977) (delineating standards for retroactive effect).
  • State v. Baird 640 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Baird 640 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    907 n. 15 (Minn.1977) (articulating the balancing formula for prospective application of a new procedural rule).
  • State v. Neely 604 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Neely 604 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    907 n. 15 (Minn.1977), we cited with approval various United States Supreme Court cases which set forth a test for determining whether a decision should be applied prospectively.
  • Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    907 n. 15 (Minn.1977) (criteria for determining retroactivity or prospectivity include “reliance” and “effect on the administration of justice”).
  • State v. Sims 553 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Sims 553 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Moore 481 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Moore 481 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1992
    -07 (Minn.1977) for dual representation cases.
  • State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Turner v. IDS Financial Services, Inc. 471 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1991
  • Turner v. IDS Financial Services, Inc. 471 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1991
    907 n. 15 (Minn.1977) (where change in constitutional law affects criminal proceedings); *109 (change in law of sovereign immunity).
  • Lundin v. State 430 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Lundin v. State 430 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    the supreme court held that for trials where codefendants are represented by the same attorney, the trial court has an affirmative duty under Minn. Const, art. 1, § 6 and the sixth amendment to warn defendants of the potential dangers of multiple representation.
  • State v. Hamm 423 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Hamm 423 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1988
    907 n. 15 (Minn.1977), we cited with approval various United States Supreme Court cases which set forth a test for determining whether a decision should be applied prospectively.
  • State v. Fuller 374 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Fuller 374 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1985
    1215, 1219 , 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975); , 281 n. 14 (Minn.1981); O’ , 907 n. 14 (Minn.1977); State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 21 , -23 (1961).
  • State v. Renier 373 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Renier 373 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1985
  • State v. LaForge 347 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1984
  • State v. LaForge 347 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1984
    in which this court adopted a procedure to ensure that defendants are fully informed of the consequences of dual representation of co-defendants by a single attorney prior to waiving their right to individual representation.
  • State v. Housley 322 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Pieschke 295 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Pieschke 295 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1980
    -29 (Minn.1978); State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , -32 (1965).
  • State v. Eaton 292 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Stith 292 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Eaton 292 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Stith 292 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
  • Mercer v. State 290 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1980
  • Mercer v. State 290 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1980
  • State v. DeFoe 280 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1979
  • State v. DeFoe 280 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1979
    relating to the protection of defendants against the dangers of dual representation, were not in effect at the time this case was tried.
  • State v. Ray 273 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Ray 273 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1978
    “MR. FINE: Yes, sir.” relating to the protection of defendants against the dangers of dual representation had been in effect, the district court would have been obligated to intervene in this case.
  • Schumann Ex Rel. Peterson v. City of St. Paul 268 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Kassube 259 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Kassube 259 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 1977
    In State v. Olsen, Minn., , filed October 7, 1977, we reversed Olsen’s conviction and ordered a new trial because the record did not show that Olsen and defendant had meaningfully waived their right to a separate trial until after the trial had started.