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. Wingo, 266 N.W.2d 508.

25 citing documents.

  • Certified Question United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Minn. 2018
    “Distinguishing between substantive rights and procedural rights is not an easy 8 task.” n.11 (Minn. 1978).
  • State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
  • Vang v. State 788 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2010
  • Vang v. State 788 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2010
    we interpreted Minn. Const, art. VI, § 2 as granting us “constitutionally independent authority to review determinations by the other state courts.” In extremely rare and exceptional cases, we have invoked this inherent authority to hear an appeal.
  • State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
    at 554-55 (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
    We then defined a procedural rule as one that “ ‘regulate[s] the steps by which the guilt or innocence of one who is accused of a criminal statute is determined’ ”, Johnson, d at 554 (), or that “ ‘neither creates a new cause of action nor deprives defendant of any defense on the merits,’ ” id.
  • State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
    We have interpreted these constitutional provisions to grant us “constitutionally independent authority to review determinations by the other state courts.”
  • Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
  • Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Azure 621 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Azure 621 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2001
    (“[B]y substantive rights the legislature was referring to statutes which declare what acts are crimes and prescribe punishment for their violation, rather than statutes which regulate the steps by which the guilt or innocence of one who is accused of violating a criminal statute is determined.”).
  • State v. Johnson 514 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Johnson 514 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Johnson 495 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Johnson 495 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    (); (substantive law “creates, defines and regulates rights, as opposed to * * * enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for their invasion.”) We reaffirm our holding in Batzer that the certification process is a matter of substantive rather than proc
  • State v. Batzer 448 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Batzer 448 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    : By substantive rights the legislature was referring to statutes which declare what acts are crimes and prescribe punishment for their violation, rather than statutes which regulate the steps by which the guilt or innocence of one who is accused of violating a criminal statute is determined.
  • State v. Tyler 275 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Tyler 275 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1979