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 v. Hart 412 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Wickern 411 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Wickern 411 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Durante 406 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Durante 406 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Payne 403 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Payne 403 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Recio-Arecibia 404 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Recio-Arecibia 404 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Paradee 398 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Paradee 398 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    the supreme court set forth a two-part analysis for reviewing appeals of pretrial motions.
  • State v. Nelson 399 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Nelson 399 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Joon Kyu Kim 398 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Joon Kyu Kim 398 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Anderson 396 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 396 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Hendrickson 395 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hendrickson 395 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    DISCUSSION An order suppressing evidence in a criminal case may be reversed only “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. Seekon 392 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Seekon 392 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    ANALYSIS I. In a pretrial appeal from an order suppressing evidence, the state must demonstrate “clearly and unequivocally the tri *626 al court has erred in its judgment, and unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.”
  • State v. Grohoski 390 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Grohoski 390 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Lopez 390 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Lopez 390 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    relied on by respondent, the court applied the "critical impact” test to a suppression of testimony concerning the identification of the defendant and statements made by another to the defendant.
  • State v. Auman 386 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Auman 386 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Ritter 383 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Ritter 383 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    1 DECISION At oral argument, is applicable.
  • State v. Anderson 380 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 380 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Berg 383 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Berg 383 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    ANALYSIS When the State appeals from pretrial orders in felony cases, appellate courts “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. Davis 381 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Stai 381 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Davis 381 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    ANALYSIS In a pretrial appeal of a suppression order in a criminal case, the trial court’s ruling will be reversed only “if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment ****.”
  • State v. Stai 381 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    ANALYSIS In a pretrial appeal from an order suppressing evidence in a criminal case, this court will reverse the trial court only “if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment,” and only where it is shown that, unless reversed, “the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.”
  • State v. Schermerhorn 379 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Schermerhorn 379 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Ritchie 379 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Ritchie 379 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Kim 374 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Kim 374 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Lee 376 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Lee 376 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    ANALYSIS In a pretrial appeal from an order suppressing evidence in a criminal case, the court will reverse the trial court only “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.” (emphasis added).
  • State v. Breeden 374 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Breeden 374 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    al appeal from an order suppressing evidence in a criminal case, the trial court’s ruling will be reversed only— *562 “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.” -35 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) ().
  • State v. Eggler 372 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1985