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. Florence, 239 N.W.2d 892.

117 citing documents.

  • State v. Lopez 778 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Lopez 778 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
    P. 2.01; (citing State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , ).
  • State v. Dunson 770 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Dunson 770 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446 , (quotation omitted).
  • State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
  • State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
    at 577-78 (quoting State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , ) Although there may be a different liberty interest at stake in a bail hearing than at a probable cause hearing — where the ultimate question is whether there is probable cause that the defendant committed the crime — a defendant still has a similar right to due process at the bail hearing.
  • State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446
  • State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
    (quoting State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 450 , ).
  • In Re the Welfare of D. W. 731 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • In Re the Welfare of D. W. 731 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 459 , modified on other grounds.
  • In Re Welfare of C.T.L. 722 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • In Re Welfare of C.T.L. 722 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    Probable cause to support a criminal charge exists when “ ‘the evidence worthy of consideration * * * brings the ' charge against the prisoner within reasonable probability.’ ” (quoting State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446 , ).
  • State v. Eibensteiner 690 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Eibensteiner 690 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    P. 11.03 and State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , which pertain to dismissal of a complaint for lack of probable cause.
  • In re the Welfare of C.M.A. 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re CMA 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re CMA 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 457
  • In re the Welfare of C.M.A. 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 457
  • State v. Koenig 666 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Koenig 666 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2003
    This type of hearing has come to be called a Florence hearing based on the case of State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442
  • State v. Ortiz 626 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Ortiz 626 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 457
  • State v. Trei 624 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Trei 624 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 457
  • State v. Doppler 590 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Doppler 590 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1999
    for rev. denied (Minn., April 13, 1992) (referencing State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 456-57 , ).
  • State v. Hendricks 586 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Hendricks 586 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442
  • In Re the Welfare of A.C.N. 583 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • In Re the Welfare of A.C.N. 583 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    After examining the entire record, the district court can deny the motion to dismiss if “satisfied that the facts appearing in the record, including reliable hearsay, would preclude the granting of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal if proved at trial.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 459 , modified, (emphasizing that the state need not produce witnesses at probable cause hearing to prevent dismissal).
  • State v. Hegstrom 543 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Hegstrom 543 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 460 , -04 (1976) (noting examples of when motions to dismiss for lack of probable cause will be denied).
  • State v. Dunagan 521 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Dunagan 521 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1994
    Under State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , “the production of exonerating evidence by a defendant at the probable cause hearing does not justify the dismissal of the charges if the record establishes that the prosecutor possesses substantial evidence that will be admissible at tr
  • State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
    The test of probable cause “is whether the evidence worthy of consideration * * * brings the charge against the prisoner within reasonable probability.” (quoting State ex rel.
  • State v. Moe 498 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Moe 498 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    See State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 460 , (“trial judge’s function at the omnibus hearing does not extend to an assessment of the relative credibility of conflicting testimony”).
  • State v. Genung 481 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Genung 481 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    See State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 456-57
  • State v. Hookom 474 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Hookom 474 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 457
  • State v. Poupard 471 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Poupard 471 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 459
  • State v. Jordan 426 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Jordan 426 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    to require the defendant to stand trial.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 457
  • State v. Case 412 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Case 412 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442