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. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d 128.

124 citing documents.

  • State v. Heaton 812 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), (citing United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 , 122 S.Ct.
  • In re the Welfare of M.L.M. 813 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Johnson 813 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Johnson 813 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
    at 17 ; (concluding that a defendant’s “reasonable expectation of privacy was diminished merely by virtue of his status as a probationer”).
  • In re the Welfare of M.L.M. 813 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 2012
    at 17 ; (concluding that a defendant’s “reasonable expectation of privacy was diminished merely by virtue of his status as a probationer”).
  • State v. Coleman 808 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Coleman 808 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    at 521; (“[The defendant] has been convicted of felony second-degree burglary.
  • State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
  • State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
    Co., , 584 n. 2 (Minn.2010); State v. Kremer, 307 Minn. 309, 312-13 , (“[T]he fundamental rule that this court will not decide issues which are raised for the first time on appeal has not been subject to an exception where the tardily raised errors consist of allegedly unconstitutional criminal procedu
  • In Re the Welfare of M.L.M. 781 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • In Re the Welfare of M.L.M. 781 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Roy 761 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Roy 761 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    uals convicted of crimes of violence from possessing firearms is “ ‘designed to protect the public safety by keeping firearms out of the hands of convicted criminals who have committed crimes which, in the legislature’s judgment, are indications of future dangerousness.’ ” (quoting *890 ), aff 'd
  • State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
    at 833 ; (stating that a probationer’s “reasonable expectation of privacy was diminished merely by virtue of his status as a probationer”).
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
    If a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence at trial, we may review the district court’s decision if “it implicates a plain error affecting substantial rights.”
  • State v. Johnson 744 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Johnson 744 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jackson 741 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Jackson 741 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007