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. Wollan, 303 N.W.2d 253.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Franson 921 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Franson 921 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    See State v. Wollan , , 255 (Minn. 1981) ; see also State v. Palmer , , 831 (Minn. App. 2008).
  • State of Minnesota v. Adam Dale Muellner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Adam Dale Muellner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    to support his position.
  • State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
    In addition, we have stated that as a “general rule, a prosecutor should honor a grand jury request for additional evidence.”
  • State v. Palmer 749 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Palmer 749 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • In Re the Welfare of S.M.E. 725 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2007
  • In Re the Welfare of S.M.E. 725 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2007
    P. 28.05 which indicate that a good-faith timely motion by a prosecuting attorney for clarification or rehearing of an appealable order extends the time to appeal from that order.
  • State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
    (holding that the state is not required to present to the grand jury evidence of the defendant’s mental illness).
  • State v. Champion 594 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Champion 594 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    (noting general rule is if one files motion for rehearing or similar motion after time limit for filing notice of appeal has expired, then filing of motion does not extend time with which to appeal); (concluding standing issue properly pr
  • In re the Welfare of W.L.H. 552 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • In re the Welfare of W.L.H. 552 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
    As a general rule, a prosecutor should honor grand jury requests for additional evidence
  • State v. Batzer Construction Co. 405 N.W.2d 523 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Batzer Construction Co. 405 N.W.2d 523 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (Minn.1981) as support for its argument that November 25 is the date from which the 90 days begins to run.
  • State v. Iten 401 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Iten 401 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • 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. Kloskowski 378 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Kloskowski 378 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    City of Rochester v. Stevens, 300 Minn. 458
  • State v. Montjoy 366 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Montjoy 366 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1985
    where we held that by filing a good-faith motion for clarification or rehearing within the time limit for filing a notice of appeal from a pretrial order, the state extended the appeal time period.
  • State v. O'DELL 328 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1983
  • State v. O'DELL 328 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1983
    Other issues concerning the prosecutor’s
  • Matter of Welfare of Hartung 304 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1981
  • Matter of Welfare of Hartung 304 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1981
    The only remaining issue is whether we should grant the petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to order the prosecutor to present the alleged exculpatory evidence to the grand jury- Recently, we reversed a district court order which dismissed an indictment because the prosecutor had refused to grant a grand juror’s request for evidence of the defendant’s sanity or insanity.