Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Adkins, 706 N.W.2d 59.

32 citing documents.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
We are “an error -correcting court,” and “it is not the role of this court to abolish established judicial precedent.” State v. Adkins , .
State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In State v. Adkins, this court affirmed a conviction after determining that a district court’s finding that a witness was “coherent, aware, and attentive during [their] observation of the intruder” supported its conclusion that an unnecessarily suggestive show-up identification “had adequate independent origin and there was not a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 59, 63 (Minn. App. 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Followed Emmanuel Jentzen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[W]e are an error-correc ting court and it is not the role of this court to abolish established judicial precedent.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We decline to adopt appellant’s new rule because “we are an error -correcting court and it is not the role of this court to abolish established judicial precedent.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Adkins , (declining to adopt a new rule in context of out-of-court identifications).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(holding that this factor weighed in favor of admiss ion because the witness “was coherent, aware, and attentive”); Seelye, d at 673 (holding that a witness paid adequate attention to a per petrator despite having consume d four or five beers and having smoked half a joint).
A17-0357 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Shannon Forstrom Walsh v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shannon Forstrom Walsh v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting this court’s role as “an error-correcting court”).
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 875 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 875 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
1 Dorn maintains that if a conviction based on assault-harm requires only that a defendant commits an intentional act, assault is, in effect, a strict-liability offense, which is disfavored in the law.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashad Jemeir Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashad Jemeir Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
We are “an error-correcting court and it is not the role of this court to abolish established judicial precedent.”
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
As an error-correcting court, this court is “not in [a] position to overturn established supreme court precedent.” (referring to this court’s limitations as an intermediate appellate court); (noting this court’s role as “an error-correcting court”).
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
64 n. 3 (Minn.App.2005).
State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(holding subdivision 4 of section 609.1095 unconstitutional as applied under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct.
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
ntence up to the statutory maximum sentence if the factfinder determines that the offender has five or more prior felony convictions and that the present offense is a felony that was committed as part of a pattern of criminal conduct.” In State v. Adkins, we held that the statute is unconstitutional “to the extent that it authorizes a judicial finding that a pattern of criminal conduct exists.” 1
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
at 144; (holding Minn.Stat.