Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lee, 706 N.W.2d 491.

88 citing documents.

Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 825 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2013
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 825 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2013
Beaulieu acknowledges that the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction over his commitment proceeding is a settled question under Johnson, but argues that Johnson was “incorrectly decided.” “We are ‘extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent under principles of stare decisis.’ ” ().
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Followed Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
(explaining that “[w]e are ‘extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent under principles of stare decisis’” ()).
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
[and w]e require a ‘compelling reason’ before a prior decision will be overruled.” ().
State v. Moody 806 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Moody 806 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
We first acknowledge that our supreme court has expressed “concern about the consequences of imposing jail time at the pretrial stage.”
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Strok 786 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Strok 786 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. BRIARD 784 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. BRIARD 784 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Sampair v. Village of Birchwood 784 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2010
Overruled Sampair v. Village of Birchwood 784 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2010
(“We are ‘extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent under principles of stare decisis.’ When overruling precedent, we have required a ‘compelling reason’ to do so.” (internal citations omitted) (quoting Oanes v. Allstate Ins.
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
We are “extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent under principles of stare decisis.”
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
(internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
(internal quotation omitted).
State v. Allinder 746 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Allinder 746 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-95 (Minn.2005) (reaffirming holding that stays of adjudication are pretrial orders for purposes of appeal).
Johnson v. Fabian 735 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 2007
State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
See, (discussing importance of stare decisis).
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
d 252, 256 (Minn.1996) (Coyne, J., dissenting) (stating that statutory rape “is based on recognition of the fact that young girls and boys lack both judgment *195 and the understanding- of the possible long-term consequences of their actions so that they are incapable of giving meaningful consent to sexual intercourse,” while disagreeing with majority on other grounds)
In Re Collier 726 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2007
In Re Collier 726 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2007
(citing Oanes v. Allstate Ins.
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
12 More recently, we held that “[s]ound policy reasons grounded in separation of powers *261 concerns support appellate review when a district court judge directly interferes with the charging function of the prosecutor.”
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Manns 810 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2006
State v. Manns 810 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2006
The court of appeals, dismissed the appeal as untimely on grounds that appeals from stays of adjudication are appeals from pretrial orders that must be filed within five days after the service of notice of entry of the order or notification on the record.