Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Osterloh, 275 N.W.2d 578.

76 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jaye William Snyder Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jaye William Snyder Minn. 2024
–81 (Minn. 1978) (stating that “the legislature, having the power to define what acts constitute criminal conduct, necessarily retains the power to define the punishment for such acts[,]” and that “[t]he role of the trial judge in prescribing sentence in a criminal case is that of the executor of the legislative p
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Ali , , 268-69 (Minn. 2014) ; State v. Olson , , 17-18 (Minn. 1982) ; *364 State v. Osterloh , , 580 (Minn. 1978).
State v. Fraga 898 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2017
State v. Fraga 898 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2017
-81 (Minn. 1978) (stating that the court has "only the statutory sentencing authority proscribed by the legislature”).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
at 652; see also State v. Osterloh , d 578, 581 (Minn. 1978) (holding that a district court’s “sentencing power is statutory rather than inherent”).
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The supreme court has stated that “the legislature, having the power to define what acts constitute criminal conduct, necessarily retains the power to define the punishment for such acts.”
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
Schowalter v. State 822 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2012
Schowalter v. State 822 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2012
-80 (Minn.1978) (observing that courts are “the final interpretative body as to constitutional matters”); see also Witzenburger v. State ex rel.
State v. M.D.T. 815 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. M.D.T. 815 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
As to the effect on the judiciary, the separation of powers doctrine “is grounded in judicial self-preservation” and “can be neither augmented nor diminished by legislative acts.” S.L.H., d at 278 (quotation omitted); (“Inherent judicial power grows out of express and implied constitutional provisions mandating a separation of powers and a viable judicial branch of government.
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“[T]he legislature, having the power to define what acts constitute criminal conduct, necessarily retains the power to define the punishment for such acts.” see also Back, d at 276 (stating that “whether or not felony-murder should be classified as second-degree murder or third-degree murder is a legislative decision”).
State v. Bluhm 663 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bluhm 663 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Misquadace 644 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2002
State v. Misquadace 644 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2002
State v. Pflepsen 590 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1999
State v. Pflepsen 590 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1999
“[Cjourts have no inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentence for criminal acts.” ().
State v. T.M.B. 590 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. TMB 590 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. T.M.B. 590 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(trial court had no inherent authority to compel county to pay for criminal offender’s rehabilitative treatment during probation); Clerk of Lyon County, 308 Minn. at 182 , d at 787 (action of district court judges in setting clerk’s salary not proper exercise of inherent authority).
State v. TMB 590 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(trial court had no inherent authority to compel county to pay for criminal offender's rehabilitative treatment during probation); Clerk of Lyon County, 308 Minn. at 182 , d at 787 (action of district court judges in setting clerk's salary not proper exercise of inherent authority).
State v. Garcia 582 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1998
State v. Garcia 582 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1998
State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
In sentencing, the legislature has the power to define the punishment for crimes, and the courts are the “executor of the legislative power.”
State v. Hanson 572 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1997
State v. Hanson 572 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1997
State v. Thoma 569 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Thoma 569 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
*208 580 (Minn.1978) (legislature has power to define punishment for offense, and court is merely the executor of that power).
State v. Behl 564 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1997
State v. Behl 564 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1997
State v. Krotzer 548 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1996
State v. Krotzer 548 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1996
Clerk of Court’s Compensation for Lyon County v. Lyon County Comm’rs, 308 Minn. 172, 180 , City of St.
State v. Combs 504 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Combs 504 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Morrow 492 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Morrow 492 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
the sentencing court conditioned defendant’s probation upon his completion of a treatment program in a private institution with which the county had no contractual agreement.
State v. Robinson 476 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Robinson 476 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1991