Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Al-Naseer, 734 N.W.2d 679.

58 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In Spann, the supreme court reasoned that, in prior cases in which district courts “misapplied the intent element in a bench trial,” the supreme court “reversed the conviction and remanded to the district court to reconsider its verdict on the existing record.” d at 216 ( ).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Ralph Kodlowski Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Ralph Kodlowski Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Roald Dean Marth Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Roald Dean Marth Minn. Ct. App. 2025
which is “satisfied if an indictment contains such descriptions of the offense charged as will enable a defendant to make his defense and to plead the judgment in bar of any further prosecution 10 Marth also argues that the misdemeanor conviction violates the rule of lenity, which “requires that [appellate courts] construe a statute against strict criminal liability.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 679, 688 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant Minn. 2025
Former law includes “past versions of the law at issue.” Velisek, d at 701; –87 (Minn. 2007) (relying on an earlier version of a statute to ascertain legislative intent).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jermaine Chamberlain Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jermaine Chamberlain Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 679, 688 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
the former law.”); –87 (Minn. 2007) (relying on an earlier version of a statute to ascertain legislative intent).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“[P]roof of knowledge may be by circumstantial evidence.”) ( (internal quotations omitted)).
A20-0912 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Kruse, d at 559 (“Moreover, driving on the fog line could compromise the safety of any stopped motorist, pedestrian, or cyclist on the right side of the fog line.”); (“[A] car driven by Al-Naseer 7 struck and killed a person who was changing a tire along the side of Highway 10.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, e.g., Rehaif v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2195 -99 (2019); Ndikum, d at 819; -86 (Minn. 2007); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 303-12 (2012).
State v. Pakhnyuk 926 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 2019
State v. Pakhnyuk 926 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 2019
Co. v. Perry , , 328 (Minn. 2008) (relying on an earlier version of statute to ascertain legislative intent); State v. Al-Naseer , , 684 (Minn. 2007) (same).
Nathan Thomas Tow-Arnett, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that “[t]he proof of knowledge may be by circumstantial evidence”).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
State v. Sullivan, 245 Minn. 103
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See id.; , 687 n.3 (Minn. 2007).
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
We came to a d at 822 (requiring the State to prove that the defendant knew he possessed a pistol to be guilty of the crime of possession of a pistol in public), -86 (Minn.2007) (concluding that for purposes of criminal vehicular homicide for leaving the scene, a defendant must know he was in an accident with a person or vehicle because “failure to stop is not a crime in all circumstances”).
State v. Ndikum 815 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2012
State v. Ndikum 815 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2012
See, (reading a mens rea requirement into statute that states “if the person causes the death of a human being ...
In re the Financial Responsibility for the Out-of-Home Placement Costs for S.M. 812 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2012
In re the Financial Responsibility for the Out-of-Home Placement Costs for S.M. 812 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2012
“If the language of the statute is clear and free of all ambiguity we will apply the plain meaning.”
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Here, the statute’s plain language uses the term “knowingly” as an adverb modifying the verb “violates.” (stating that appellate courts apply the plain meaning of a statute when the language is “clear and free of all ambiguity”); *161 The Chicago Manual of Style § 5.165 (16th ed.2010) (stating that an “adverb should generally be placed as near as possible to the word, it is intended to modify” because it
State v. Rausch 799 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rausch 799 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rodewald v. Taylor 797 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rodewald v. Taylor 797 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
State v. Al-Naseer (Al-Naseer TV), -89 (Minn.2007).
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N. P. 767 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N. P. 767 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2009

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by