Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6.

745 citing documents.

State v. Bicek 429 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Schenk 427 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Wenthold 427 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Wenthold 427 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Schenk 427 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
see also Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D.
State v. Dick 419 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Dick 419 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Doherty 419 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Doherty 419 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The trial court has broad discretion in determining sentence departures, and the appellate court “generally will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.”
State v. McKissic 415 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. McKissic 415 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Champion 413 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Champion 413 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Roy 408 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Roy 408 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“The trial court has broad discretion, and * * * we generally will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.”
State v. Lowmaster 406 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Lowmaster 406 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Reid 400 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Reid 400 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. McLAUGHLIN AND SCHULZ, INC. 397 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McLAUGHLIN AND SCHULZ, INC. 397 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Torell 396 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Torell 396 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Warborg 395 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Warborg 395 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marshall v. State 395 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marshall v. State 395 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rupp 393 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rupp 393 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Powe v. State 389 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Powe v. State 389 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to depart from the sentencing guidelines and “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State v. Anderson 388 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Anderson 388 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Griffin 386 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Griffin 386 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Herme v. State 384 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Herme v. State 384 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the supreme court stated: [I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.
State v. Lonergan 381 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Quast 381 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Quast 381 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Here, there were no substantial and compelling reasons requiring departure; this is not the “rare case”
State v. Lonergan 381 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Van Ruler 378 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1985