Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kelsey v. State, 283 N.W.2d 892.

37 citing documents.

Kim Ouk, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
urt determined that a habeas corpus petition is an appropriate means of reviewing allegations of the failure of parole authorities to follow applicable laws, but a concurrence joined by two other justices added that, in light of the Greenholtz decision, “[we] believe the Taylor procedures for parole consideration should be reaffirmed on the basis of our state constitution.” (Scott, J., concurring specially).
Michael John Husten, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minn. Stat. § 589.01; (Kelsey II).
Minn. 2021
Casimir Robert Krithers v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Casimir Robert Krithers v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wood, -94 (Minn. 1979) (stating a petition for writ of habeas corpus is only appropriate for matters relating to a district court’s jurisdiction and not to trial errors, because habeas corpus remedy is for immediate release from confinement).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
(stating that habeas corpus may be used to challenge prison conditions as cruel and unusual punishment); see also In re J.A.G., 446 N.E.2d 868, 870 (Ill.
Shannon Hollie v. Lucinda E. Jesson, Commissioner of Department of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Shannon Hollie v. Lucinda E. Jesson, Commissioner of Department of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2014
reviewed through some other regular legal procedure have no place in a habeas corpus proceeding.”); –94 (Minn. 1979) (disapproving of “attempt .
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
(explaining that our court “expanded habeas corpus into a kind of all-purpose postconviction remedy in the early 1960’s, prior to the enactment of the postconviction remedy act in 1967”); see also, e.g., State ex rel.
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 798 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 798 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
in which the supreme court considered a habeas petitioner’s claim that he was wrongfully denied parole.
Rud v. Fabian 743 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Rud v. Fabian 743 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
§ 589.01 (2006); (stating that supreme court has inherent judicial power to create exception to general rule that habeas is unavailable to prisoner confined pursuant to final judgment).
State Ex Rel. Guth v. Fabian 716 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State Ex Rel. Guth v. Fabian 716 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See, (noting that habeas corpus may be used to challenge prison conditions as cruel and unusual punishment).
Loyd v. Fabian 682 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Loyd v. Fabian 682 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See, -95 (Minn.1979) (stating habeas corpus may be used to test whether denial of parole violates applicable statutes or constitutional provisions and to test allegations that confinement conditions constitute cruel and unusual punishment); State of Minn., ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Allen v. Fabian 658 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State Ex Rel. Allen v. Fabian 658 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State ex rel. Linehan v. Wood 394 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State ex rel. Linehan v. Wood 394 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kelsey v. State ex rel. Erickson 320 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1982
Kelsey v. State ex rel. Erickson 320 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1982
Petitioner has sought relief in this court and in other courts on a number of previous occasions, n.1 (Minn.1979).
Morse v. State 311 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1981
Morse v. State 311 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1981
Riley v. State 294 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1980
Riley v. State 294 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1980
State v. Eaton 292 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
State v. Stith 292 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
State v. Eaton 292 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
State v. Stith 292 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
Rongitsch v. State 289 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1979
Vezina v. State 289 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1979
Rongitsch v. State 289 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1979
Vezina v. State 289 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1979
we held that the Postconviction Remedy Act was not available to obtain judicial review of a decision by the corrections board concerning parole.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by