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. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157.

239 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    To obtain appellate review of a pre -trial order, the state must show that, unless the district court’s ruling is reversed, it “will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” see also Minn. R. Crim.
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    To obtain appellate review of a pre -trial order, the state must show that, unless the district court’s ruling is reversed, it “will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” see also Minn. R. Crim.
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    2; -86 (Minn. 2016); State v. McLeod
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    To obtain appellate review of a pre - trial order, the state must demonstrate that, unless the district court’s allegedly erroneous ruling is reversed, it “will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.”
  • State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
  • Explained State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
    In Lugo , we explained "what we meant in [].” d at 481 .
  • State of Minnesota v. Catherine Nyree McCabe 890 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Catherine Nyree McCabe 890 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    In a state’s pretrial appeal, this court will “reverse the determination of the trial court only if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally, first, that the trial court erred in its judgment and, second, that unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” ().
  • State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
    established a special, deferential standard of review for a district court’s legal conclusions in pretrial appeals by the State under Minn. R.Crim.
  • State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Gehloff Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Gehloff Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    (holding that a state may only appeal, and this court will only reverse, a district court’s pretrial order if the state demonstrates that the district court clearly erred in its judgment and the error will have critical impact on the outcome).
  • State of Minnesota v. Adam Dale Muellner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Adam Dale Muellner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (affirming the district court’s authority to reconsider a suppression order in the midst of a trial, well outside the five-day window for appeal from a pretrial order).
  • State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
    we held that a pretrial order will only be reversed if the State “demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” The operation of Rule 28.04, subd.
  • State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
    But we “will not overturn a pretrial order of the district court unless ‘the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the [district] court erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.’ ” ().
  • State v. Vonderharr 733 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Vonderharr 733 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    LYSIS I. “[I]n reviewing pretrial prosecution appeals, this court ‘will only reverse the determination of the trial court if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.’ ” 2 ().
  • State v. Jordan 726 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Jordan 726 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    “In order to prevail in an appeal from a pretrial order, the state must show clearly and unequivocally that the district court erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” (), review denied (Minn. July 27, 1994).
  • State v. Melde 725 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Melde 725 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Myers 711 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Myers 711 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    “[I]n reviewing pretrial prosecution appeals, this court ‘will only reverse the determination of the trial court if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.’ ” ().
  • State v. Skapyak 702 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Skapyak 702 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Warsame 701 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Warsame 701 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Barrett 694 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Barrett 694 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    In reviewing pretrial prosecution appeals, this court will reverse the district court’s determination only if the state can clearly and unequivocally demonstrate “that the [district] court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.”
  • State v. Miller 659 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Miller 659 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Kromah 657 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Kromah 657 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Richardson 622 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Richardson 622 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2001
  • State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner 605 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner 605 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    Normally, [an appellate] court will only reverse a pre-trial decision of the trial court suppressing evidence if the State demonstrates “clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” ().
  • State v. Robb 605 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Robb 605 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 2000
    I. We will not overturn a pretrial order of the district court unless “the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.”
  • State v. Peralta 598 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Peralta 598 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    *701 Generally, this court will only reverse a trial court’s pretrial decision to suppress evidence if the state demonstrates “clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” Othoudt, d at 221 ().
  • In Re the Welfare of L.E.P. 594 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1999
  • In Re the Welfare of L.E.P. 594 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Shellito 594 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1999