Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Eibensteiner, 690 N.W.2d 140.

22 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The doctrines of jurisdiction and venue are “distinct.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(noting that subject -matter jurisdiction concerns whether crime was committed in whole or in part within the state, which is distinct from venue as an element of a crime).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
is distinct from venue as an element of the offense.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Subject-matter jurisdiction is “the court’s power to hear and decide the dispute.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
Janet M. Bauch, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A17-1552 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jurisdiction presents a “threshold issue” that must be ad dressed prior to reviewing the merits of the case, State v. Eibensteiner , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
[is] alleged to have been committed within the territorial boundaries of the state.” d 140, 149 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Brian MacDonald, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Ebensteiner , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Mirkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Mirkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
by proof beyond a reasonable doubt to support a conviction.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Eulogio Hernandez-Espinoza Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eulogio Hernandez-Espinoza Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 140, 150 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
2; review denied (Minn. March 15, 2005).
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. KMM 721 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. K.M.M. 721 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. K.M.M. 721 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
2 (providing that if there is probable cause, grand jury may return indictment); -51 (Minn.App.2004) (noting that the grand jury’s duty is to determine whether there is probable cause to indict), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. KMM 721 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
2 (providing that if there is probable cause, grand jury may return indictment); -51 (Minn.App.2004) (noting that the grand jury's duty is to determine whether there is probable cause to indict), review denied (Minn. Mar.