Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bourke, 718 N.W.2d 922.

131 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Bradley Christopher Roehl Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Jayne Holmes-Buscher Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Jayne Holmes-Buscher Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Damian Mata Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Damian Mata Minn. Ct. App. 2014
This standard is “not high.” (quotation omitted).
Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord 845 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 2013
Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord 845 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 2013
Because we will address a constitutional question only if another legal basis to decide a case does not exist, we first address Nielsen’s argument founded on statutory interpretation.
State v. Rick 835 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 2013
State v. Rick 835 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 2013
See, , 929 & n. 7 (Minn.2006) (declining to address constitutional issues raised by the appellant in light of the resolution of the case on statutory grounds).
Coker v. Jesson 831 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 2013
Coker v. Jesson 831 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 2013
(“Our general practice is to avoid a constitutional ruling if there is another basis on which a case can be decided.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
under the clearly erroneous standard, but we review the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” , 843 (Minn.2011)
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Brown 801 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Brown 801 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(stating that Minnesota’s appellate courts generally will not address a constitutional issue if there is another basis upon which the case can be decided).
Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
( , 732 n. 7 (Minn.2003)); , 269 n. 3 (Minn.1998) (“It is well-settled law that the courts should not reach constitutional issues if matters can be resolved otherwise.”).
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
*502 When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, “we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” ().
Torgelson v. . Real Property Known as 17138 880th Ave., Renville County 749 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2008
State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008
State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008
3 We have recognized that “the reasonable suspicion standard is ‘not high.’ ” (quoting Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Jordan 742 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2007
State v. Jackson 742 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 2007
State v. Jordan 742 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2007
State v. Jordan 726 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Jordan 726 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
ANALYSIS “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in its ruling.” ().