DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schilling, 270 N.W.2d 769.

26 citing documents.

  • In re the Welfare of M.L.M. 813 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 2012
  • In re the Welfare of M.L.M. 813 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 2012
    We have stated that “[t]he policy of keeping juvenile court records confidential is rehabilitative” and the confidential nature of juvenile records provides “incentives to keep out of trouble.”
  • In Re the Welfare of M.L.M. 781 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • In Re the Welfare of M.L.M. 781 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    3 (requiring court order for release of juvenile records to the public); d, 819, 821 (Minn.1981) (stating that it would be “unfair to permit juvenile records to be used as though they were criminal records, being public information and following and harassing the juvenile throughout his life”); State v. Schilling, *387 (“The policy of keeping juvenile court records confidential is rehabilitative.
  • State v. Spann 574 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Spann 574 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Lanz-Terry 535 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Lanz-Terry 535 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1995
    2887, 2912-13 , 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974) (instructing that trial courts have considerable latitude to reject cumulative evidence); -73 (Minn.1978); State v. Brown, 185 Minn. 446, 448 , 241 N.W.
  • State v. Tennin 437 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Tennin 437 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    However, the Minnesota Supreme Court noted several federal and state cases which adopted a narrow interpretation of Davis and held Davis to apply particularly to cases where the cross-examination is sought to show bias.
  • State v. Sandberg 406 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Sandberg 406 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Anderson 394 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 394 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    the Minnesota Supreme Court observed that: The Federal and state cases decided after Davis v. Alaska generally follow the view of Justice Stewart and distinguish cases in which cross-examination concerning prior juvenile convictions are sought for general impeachment of credibility.
  • State v. Larson 389 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Larson 389 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1986
    at 1112 (Stewart, J., concurring)
  • State v. Whaley 389 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Whaley 389 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    is the leading case in Minnesota on this subject.
  • In re the Petition for Certain Records of the McLeod County Juvenile Court 352 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • In re the Petition for Certain Records of the McLeod County Juvenile Court 352 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • In Re the Welfare of C.D.L. 306 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1981
  • In Re the Welfare of C.D.L. 306 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1981
    This rule might conflict with the right of confrontation if it barred cross-examination of a prosecution witness in a criminal proceeding, but generally the rule applies in adult criminal proceedings.
  • State v. C. A. 304 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1981
  • State v. CA 304 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1981
  • State v. CA 304 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1981
  • State v. C. A. 304 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1981