Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite KUNFERMAN v. Ford Motor Company, 694 N.W.2d 783.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Logan Hunter Vagle Minn. 2025
4 2 Because this is a pretrial appeal by the State, the State must prove that the district court’s order “will have a ‘critical impact’ on the [S]tate’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Mitchel Jerome Kasper Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Barrett , , 785 (Minn. 2005).
Certified Question United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas J. Litterer and Mary L. Litterer … Minn. 2018
Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc. 900 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2017
App. P. 142.02; (explaining that the State’s pretrial appeal may be dismissed if the State “fails to timely file and serve its brief’).
Minn. 2017
App. P. 142.02; (explaining that the State’s pretrial appeal may be dismissed if the State “fails to timely file and serve its brief”).
State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
*809 We “construe and interpret rules of criminal procedure de novo.” ( , 785 (Minn. 2006)).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
1, as jurisdictional); (holding that the requirement in Minn. R. Crim.
David John Anderson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 878 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Jeffrey Koelndorfer v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Amanda Jean Lunzer v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Larry Lawayne Hewitt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Douglas John Olson 867 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roger Earl Holland 865 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie Evon Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2015
that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Homer South Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The appeal occurs while the defendant is awaiting trial, presumed innocent, and possibly confined.”
State v. McKinney 840 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
the supreme court held that “the court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over a pretrial prosecution appeal if the prosecuting attorney has failed to serve the notice of appeal upon the State Public Defender, as required by Minn. R.Crim.
In re M.O. 838 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Niemi v. Girl Scouts of Minn. & Wis.
Elbert v. Tlam 830 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(“When an appeal is not perfected, the failure to abide by the governing rules of procedure deprives the reviewing court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.”).
State v. Borg 823 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Johnson v. State 801 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2011
State v. Hannibal 786 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Strok 786 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
787 & n. 3 (Minn.2005); Minn. R.Crim.
State v. DORCY 778 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
State v. Baynes 766 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
We continued to recognize that the rules on government pretrial appeals must be strictly construed, as the appeal could occur as “the defendant is awaiting trial, presumed innocent, and possibly confined.”
State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
As a “threshold matter” in any pretrial appeal by the State, “the state must ‘clearly and unequivocally’ show both that the trial court’s order will have a ‘critical impact’ on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (); see also Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
-88 (Minn.2005) (vacating the opinion of the court of appeals because the State Public Defender was not served notice of appeal as required by Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
But, "this court has 'inherent authority to [accept] an appeal in the interests of justice even when the filing or service requirements set forth in a rule or statute have not been met.’ ” , 788 n. 4 (Minn.2005) (alteration in original) ().
State v. Lee 706 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2005
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
2(2); (holding that failure to serve notice of appeal on the State Public Defender is a jurisdictional defect because Minn. R.Crim.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by