Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Melde, 725 N.W.2d 99.

64 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
v. Hunt, d 163, 167 (Minn. 2024) (“We review the existence of standing de novo.”); (providing that the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that is reviewed de novo).
Cities Management, Inc., Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue Minn. 2023
Cities Management, Inc., Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue Minn. 2023
2 It is vital that taxpayers “have trust and confidence that Minnesota’s tax system is fairly and equitably applied to all.” Mauer v. Comm’r of Revenue, n.2 (Minn. 2013); (“Essential to the guarantee of due process is fundamental fairness.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Melde , (stating that “[e]ssential to the guarantee of due process is fundamental fairness”).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Dismissal of a charge has a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” d 113, 115 (Minn. App. 2006), aff’d, State v. Melde
Brian Allen Platt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Michael John Smude, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We have previously determined that “[d]ismissal of a charge has a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Myers , aff’d
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hunn 911 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2018
State v. Hunn 911 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2018
104 (Minn. 2006) (emphasis added); see also McDonnell v. Comm'r of Pub.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[A]n implied consent advisory that contains no misleading assurances would not violate federal due process.”
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Edward Reps Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Edward Reps Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(analyzing whether advisory’s failure to provide adequate notice of consequences of test refusal violated procedural due-process rights); Davis v. Comm’r of Pub.
Tyler Lee Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 887 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Tyler Lee Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 887 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Later, in State v. Melde, the supreme court framed the issue as follows: “whether the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory violates a driving-while-impaired (DWI) arrestee’s procedural due process rights because it fails to adequately notify the arrestee of the consequences of refusing to submit to chemical testing.” (citation omitted).
Brett Richard Kline v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James Edward Boutto v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Richard Lee Zimmerman v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Richard Lee Zimmerman v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
see also Magnuson v. Comm’r of Pub.
James Edward Boutto v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brett Richard Kline v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[D]ue process does not permit the government to mislead individuals as to either their legal obligations or the penalties they might face should they fail to satisfy those obligations.”
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James David Clark v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James David Clark v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ian Jorgen Crocker v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James David Clark v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional, and a reviewing court will declare a statute unconstitutional “only when absolutely necessary.” (quotation omitted).
James David Clark v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional,” and a reviewing court will declare a statute unconstitutional “only when absolutely necessary.” (quotation omitted).
Ian Jorgen Crocker v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Crocker is correct that “due process does not permit the government to mislead individuals as to either their legal obligations or the penalties they might face should they fail to satisfy those obligations.”
Marsha Katherine Millonig v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marsha Katherine Millonig v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional, and a reviewing court will declare a statute unconstitutional “only when absolutely necessary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christian Phillip Oberender Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christian Phillip Oberender Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Adam Perry Schroll v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Adam Perry Schroll v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012
State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
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