Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Anderson, 683 N.W.2d 818.

201 citing documents.

State v. Prtine 799 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2011
(stating that in determining whether stop was constitutional because there was objective basis for belief defendant was engaged in illegal activities, subjective belief of the officers was not the focus); State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation Dist.
Matthews v. Eichorn Motors, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Matthews v. Eichorn Motors, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Beecroft v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 798 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Beecroft v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 798 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Minneapolis Grand, LLC v. Galt Funding LLC 791 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Minneapolis Grand, LLC v. Galt Funding LLC 791 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(“When the text of a law is plain and unambiguous, we must not engage in any further construction.” (quotation omitted)).
State v. Doebel 790 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ahmed 791 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ahmed 791 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(holding that, when a law is unambiguous, this court must not engage in any further construction).
State v. Doebel 790 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 788 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 788 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Skyline Village Park Ass'n v. Skyline Village L.P. 786 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Skyline Village Park Ass'n v. Skyline Village L.P. 786 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Swenson v. Holsten 783 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Swenson v. Holsten 783 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Peoplenet Communications Corp. v. Baillon Ventures, LLC 781 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Peoplenet Communications Corp. v. Baillon Ventures, LLC 781 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 780 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 780 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Wilkes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 777 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Wilkes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 777 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
A limited investigatory stop of a motorist is constitutionally permissible “if the state can show that the officer had a ‘particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’ ” -23 (Minn.2004) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 , 101 S.Ct.
Nelson v. Holland 776 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Nelson v. Holland 776 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Soderquist v. Universal Services Telecom Tech Inc. 774 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Soderquist v. Universal Services Telecom Tech Inc. 774 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Beall 771 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Beall 771 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Baumann 759 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Baumann 759 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that to be reasonable the suspicion cannot be the product of “mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.”).
In Re the Disability Earnings Offset of Masson 753 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Disability Earnings Offset of Masson 753 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Kilmer 741 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Kilmer 741 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
of a traffic law, a mistaken interpretation of that law cannot provide the requisite objective basis for suspecting the motorist of criminal activity, as the Minnesota Supreme Court has held: “Therefore, we hold that an officer’s mistaken interpretation of a statute may not form the particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity to justify a traffic stop.” -24 (Minn.2004).
In Re the Welfare of E.S.C. 731 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of E.S.C. 731 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bukkuri v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 729 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bukkuri v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 729 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Fleming 724 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Fleming 724 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
-22 (Minn.2004); see also Minn.Stat.
Citizens Advocating Responsible Development v. Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners 713 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2006
Card v. KANDIYOHI CTY. BD. OF COM'RS 713 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2006
Citizens Advocating Responsible Development v. Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners 713 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2006
We have noted that the “words of a statute are to be viewed in their setting, not isolated from their context.” (citing *825 Chiodo v. Bd.
Card v. KANDIYOHI CTY. BD. OF COM'RS 713 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2006
(citing *825 Chiodo v. Bd.
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005