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. Schultz, 676 N.W.2d 337.

28 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    The district court found that the trooper had reasonable, articulable suspicion that Jones “was acting evasively due to potential criminal activity.” Jones argues that the district court’s finding is clearly erroneous because the trooper did not testify that Jones’s conduct was “evasi ve.” See State v. Schultz , (“Clearly erroneous means manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not supported by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    2(a)(4); State v. Schultz , (recognizing employment and housing problems as reasons to seek judicial expungement).
  • State of Minnesota v. J. E. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. J. E. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when they are “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not supported by the evidence as 5 a whole.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. N.G.K. 770 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. NGK 770 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. N.G.K. 770 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    (affirming expungement in light of petitioner’s demonstrated difficulties obtaining employment and housing); see also Ambaye, d at 261 (affirming denial of ex-pungement where petitioner failed to demonstrate difficulties obtaining employment); H.A., d at 364-65 (reversing expunge
  • State v. NGK 770 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    (affirming expungement in light of petitioner's demonstrated difficulties obtaining employment and housing); see also Ambaye, d at 261 (affirming denial of expungement where petitioner failed to demonstrate difficulties obtaining employment); H.A., d at 364-65 (reversing expungem
  • State v. S.L.H. 755 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2008
  • State v. SLH 755 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2008
  • State v. S.L.H. 755 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2008
    the district court concluded that in the absence of a violation of constitutional rights, "the judicial branch does not have the authority to order non-judicial records sealed” pursuant to its inherent authority.
  • State v. SLH 755 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2008
    [3] the district court concluded that in the absence of a violation of constitutional rights, "the judicial branch does not have the authority to order non-judicial records sealed" pursuant to its inherent authority.
  • State v. V.A.J. 744 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. VAJ 744 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. VAJ 744 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. V.A.J. 744 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    The petitioner in State v. Schultz requested expungement of "all data related to the offense” and the district court granted expungement, ordering "all public records relating to the arrest, indictment, trial, and subsequent discharge [from probation] sealed.”
  • State v. L.W.J. 717 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. LWJ 717 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. L.W.J. 717 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    review denied (June 16, 1999); -44 (Minn.App.2004) (holding that, absent evidence of injustice resulting from an executive agent’s abuse of *457 discretion, the district court oversteps its inherent authority when it orders the executive branch to seal records).
  • State v. LWJ 717 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    review denied (June 16, 1999); -44 (Minn.App.2004) (holding that, absent evidence of injustice resulting from an executive agent's abuse of *457 discretion, the district court oversteps its inherent authority when it orders the executive branch to seal records).
  • State v. HA 716 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. H.A. 716 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. H.A. 716 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. HA 716 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. A.C.H. 710 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Ach 710 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Ach 710 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. A.C.H. 710 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    This court reiterated that “the function of preparing and maintaining criminal records is a unique constitutional function of the executive branch.” (), review denied (Minn. June 16, 1999).