Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, 728 N.W.2d 510.

77 citing documents.

Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(); see also Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, -23 (Minn.2007) (stating that appellants may “refine” arguments previously made to district court).
Coker v. Jesson 831 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 2013
Coker v. Jesson 831 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 2013
2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (explaining that a burden of production can involve no credibility assessment); Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, (stating that “as a general matter, a district court should not engage in a qualitative evaluation or weighing of the evidence when deciding whether a claimant has produced sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption”).
Marriage of Kremer v. Kremer 827 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marriage of Kremer v. Kremer 827 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, -23 (Minn.2007).
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
(citation omitted) (stating that we review a district court’s determinations under the foundational reliability prong of Frye-Mack for an abuse of discretion); Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, (citations omitted) (stating that a district court’s determination of the adequacy of foundation offered for expert witness testimony under Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Tanksley 809 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2012
State v. Tanksley 809 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2012
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, Minn. R. Evid.
Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet, Vin 1GNFC16017J255427, Texas License Plate 578VYH 805 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet, Vin 1GNFC16017J255427, Texas License Plate 578VYH 805 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
A claimant in a civil forfeiture action “only bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of forfeitability.” Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency
In Re Estate of Butler 782 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Estate of Butler 782 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
401; see also Jacobsen v. $55,900, (explaining that evidence is admissible even if it makes relevant fact only “slightly more probable” (quotation omitted)).
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 776 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 2009
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 776 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 2009
See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, , 521 & n. 7 (Minn.2007) (relying on "disfavored status” of forfeiture only after first concluding the language of the forfeiture statute was "ambiguous”) (Anderson, P., J., majority opinion).
Southcross Commerce Center, LLP v. Tupy Properties, LLC 766 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Southcross Commerce Center, LLP v. Tupy Properties, LLC 766 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, (quoting Shell Oil Co. v. Kapler, 235 Minn. 292, 300 , ).
State v. White 759 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. White 759 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency
Torgelson v. . Real Property Known as 17138 880th Ave., Renville County 749 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2008
Torgelson v. . Real Property Known as 17138 880th Ave., Renville County 749 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2008
2 Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Cur *27 rency, see also Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 621-22 , 113 S.Ct.
Kunza v. St. Mary's Regional Health Center 747 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kunza v. St. Mary's Regional Health Center 747 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See also Jacobson v. $55,900, (holding an appellant may refíne an argument made to the district court as long as the argument can be evaluated on the facts already in the record.)
State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating party cannot “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory [on appeal]”); cf. Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, -23 (Minn. 2007) (addressing application of Thiele).