Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Baxter, 686 N.W.2d 846.

38 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Typically, we review a district court’s decision to amend the complaint for an abuse of discretion, while we review a district court’s sentencing decision under section 609.035 de novo.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Dunlap then cites State v. Baxter, which states that the district court “retains broad discretion over how the case proceeds once it is filed,” which “includes the power to grant or deny the prosecutor’s request to amend the complaint.” -52 (Minn. App. 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The district court has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint, and its ruling will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The district court has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint, and its ruling will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The district court has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint, and its ruling will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
EDF-RE US Development, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The district court has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint, and its ruling will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The district court has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint, and its ruling will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The district court has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint, and its ruling will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Second, this court has determined that “[t]he state satisfies t he critical-impact test when the district court’s order is based on an interpretation o f a rule that bars further prosecution of a defendant.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A] district court retains broad discretion over how a case proceeds once it is filed.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Jeannie Frances Ball Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeannie Frances Ball Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Generally, “[t]he district court has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint, and its ruling will not be 5 reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The district court has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint, and its ruling will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Robert Forster Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Robert Forster Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When deciding whether the district court erred in its pretrial order, we “independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred.”
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Benjamin Jacobs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Benjamin Jacobs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sarah May Mickalsen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sarah May Mickalsen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When deciding whether the district court erred in its pretrial order, we “independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred.”
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Alvin Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Alvin Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Bernard 844 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Bernard 844 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria Vin: 2FAHP74WX4X158445 792 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria Vin: 2FAHP74WX4X158445 792 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
When the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it also “has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint, and its ruling will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” ().
Metro Building Companies v. RAM Buildings, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Metro Building Companies v. RAM Buildings, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“The district court has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint, and its ruling will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” ().
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The district court has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint, and its ruling will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” ().