Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. MacK, 292 N.W.2d 764.

87 citing documents.

Antonio Ray Seals, Jr., a minor child by his Mother and Natural Guardian Marciana Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Cir. 1923); –69, 772 (Minn. 1980).
Makenzie Moore, a minor, by and through her Conservator, First Fiduciary Corporation, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Harvey 932 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2019
State v. Harvey 932 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2019
Cir. 1923) ("[T]he thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs."), and State v. Mack , , 768 (Minn. 1980) ("[T]he results [must be] scientifically reliable as accurate.").
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cindy Ly, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Nowacki 880 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Nowacki 880 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ction 609.345 provides: (a) A court may order as an intermediate sanction under section 609.135 and the commissioner of corrections may order as a condition of release under section 244.05 or 609.3455 that an offender under supervision for a sex offense 1 Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D. C. Cir. 1923)
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
1923), -69, 772 (Minn.1980).
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923)
State v. Tanksley 809 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2012
State v. Tanksley 809 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2012
Under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), we have adopted a two-pronged standard for determining the admissibility of such evidence.
John Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis 801 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
John Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis 801 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
ert testimony generally “must establish the proper foundation for admissibility by showing that the scientific theory is generally accepted in the applicable medical or scientific community, and that the principles and methodology used are reliable.” (citing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923); ).
State v. Edstrom 792 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Edstrom 792 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(citing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923); ).
State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
(citing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923), ).
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923) (requiring that the scientific principle or test about which an expert is to testify be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community); -69, 772 (Minn.1980) (accepting the Frye standard and requiring that the particular evidence derived from that test must have a foundation that is scientifically reliable).
State v. Brown 739 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2007
State v. Brown 739 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2007
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
The Frye-Mack test is our restatement, of a test the D.C.
Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
The two prongs of the test derive, respectively, from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923)
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
McLeod argues that Hunter’s because it would be unduly prejudicial, and because it would interfere with the jury's domain by vouching for Child A's credibility.
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
McDonough v. Allina Health System 685 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
McDonough v. Allina Health System 685 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923); -69, 772 (Minn.1980).
State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923)
State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
In granting the motions, the district court excluded appellants’ experts because they used methodology that was not generally accepted under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), -69, 772 (Minn.1980), or the United States Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 587 , 113 S.Ct.
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
Wall v. Fair View Hospital & Healthcare Services 568 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Wall v. Fair View Hospital & Healthcare Services 568 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Klawitter 518 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1994
State v. Bauer 512 N.W.2d 112 Minn. Ct. App. 1994