DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gail, 713 N.W.2d 851.

84 citing documents.

  • State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    (concluding that defendant, who sublet a cellular telephone, did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cellular telephone records when the telephone service provider held the challenged records and defendant’s call history was exposed via the “Caller ID” function on the cellular telephones o
  • State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
  • State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
    In cases *611 where “it is unclear whether a witness is an accomplice or not, it generally becomes a question of fact for the jury to decide.” ().
  • Harrison v. Commissioner of Public Safety 781 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Harrison v. Commissioner of Public Safety 781 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    Similarly, the protections of the Minnesota Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures are not triggered unless a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy, defined as “those expectations of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.” (quoting Katz, 389 U.S. at 361 , 88 S.Ct.
  • Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
  • Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Baumann 759 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Baumann 759 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    (concluding that calling a witness “a believable person” and “frank and sincere” was not improper vouching).
  • McGlothlin v. Steinmetz 751 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 2008
  • McGlothlin v. Steinmetz 751 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 2008
    The deference afforded in the warrant context is grounded in the policy determination that “[w]e do not want the warrant requirement to become so burdensome as to discourage the police from seeking review by a judge.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Jackson 746 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jackson 746 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2008
    -65 (Minn.2006); Lee, d at 316-17 .
  • State v. Jordan 742 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Jordan 742 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2007
  • Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
  • Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
  • Gail v. State 732 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2007
  • Gail v. State 732 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2007
    The underlying facts of Gail’s
  • State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
    -60 (Minn.2006) (concluding that the defendant “has the burden of establishing that his rights under Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution were violated”).
  • State v. Jackson 726 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Jackson 726 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 2007
    863 n. 9 (Minn.2006) (noting the meager analysis in Lee and applying the harmless error standard because the claim failed under both the harmless error standard and the plain error standard).
  • State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    Vouching occurs “when the government implies a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness, refers to facts outside the record, or expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” (quotation omitted).