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

239 citing documents.

  • State v. Eggler 372 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    ANALYSIS Before this court can reverse a trial court’s pretrial determination, the State must demonstrate “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. Eisenbacher 368 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • City of Bemidji v. Harr 368 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Eisenbacher 368 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • City of Bemidji v. Harr 368 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Montjoy 366 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Montjoy 366 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1985
    in dismissing a pretrial state’s appeal because the record did not demonstrate the trial court’s suppression order would have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial, we stated that “the trial court is free to reconsider its rulings upon proper application of the parties at an appropriate time
  • State v. Howard 360 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Howard 360 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    The State must demonstrate “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. Gard 358 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Gard 358 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    held that in a pretrial appeal from an order suppressing evidence 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 and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the
  • State v. DePoe 357 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. DePoe 357 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    2, the State must demonstrate “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. Schervee 356 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Schervee 356 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Hanson 355 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Hanson 355 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Its suppression has a critical impact on the State’s
  • State v. Wendroth 352 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Wendroth 352 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    the Minnesota Supreme Court held that in a pretrial appeal from an order suppressing evidence in a criminal case, the *135 trial court’s ruling will 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 wil
  • State v. Kline 351 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Kline 351 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The state must demonstrate “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.” at 530 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
  • State v. Hunter 349 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Hunter 349 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Such an order can 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.”
  • State v. Whelan 350 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Whelan 350 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    ANALYSIS Before this court can reverse a trial court’s pretrial determination, the State must demonstrate “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. Pelovsky 347 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Pelovsky 347 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Schmieg 344 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Schmieg 344 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    ISSUE Did the state make a ?
  • State v. Hejl 315 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Hejl 315 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Fisher 304 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Fisher 304 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1981
    709 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980)
  • State v. Webber 292 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Webber 292 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1980
    this court refused to reverse the district court’s suppression order.
  • State v. Vangstad 289 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Vangstad 289 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Helenbolt 280 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Helenbolt 280 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1979