Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Deal, 740 N.W.2d 755.

25 citing documents.

Texa Tonka Shopping Center, LLC v. JK 4 AL LLC LLC, Katherine Prantner, and John ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Denials of requests for permissive intervention are generally not appealable.”
Tokvan Ly v. Jodi Harpstead, Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services 7 N.W.3d 560 Minn. 2024
Tokvan Ly v. Jodi Harpstead, Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services 7 N.W.3d 560 Minn. 2024
See, (availability of error correction by appeal generally makes issuance of a writ of prohibition inappropriate).
Dr. Jane Doe, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Dr. Jane Doe, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. J. J. and J. D. J., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
While prohibition may “issue to prevent an abuse of discretion where there is no other adequate remedy at law,” “[the] writ is a preventative, not a corrective, measure,” d 755, 769 (Minn. 2007).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: M.L.S., C.V.R., and P.H., Commissioner of Human Services, … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. A. W. and F. N., Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court’s decision to deny “a request to permissively intervene will be reversed only when a clear abuse of discretion is shown.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Guardianship of Paul Yankowiak, Jr., Ward. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Deal , (quotation omitted).
In re Program to Aid Victims of Sexual Assault, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minnesota’s “criminal rules allow only limited discovery, with a handful of provisions meant to give the defendant and prosecution as complete discovery as is possible under constitutional limitations.” State v. Deal , (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. C., Father. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
1 Trial counsel’s failure to initia te a civil suit cannot be cons idered ineffective assistance of counsel: “[i]n contrast to the civil rules, the criminal rules allow only limited discovery” and criminal defendants “should not be perm itted to circumvent th e limited scope of discovery in the criminal proceeding by attemp ting to use civil-like investigatory tools.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“In contrast to the civil rules, the criminal rules allow only limited discovery[.]”
In re Timothy Leslie, Dakota County Sheriff, State of Minnesota v. John David Emerson 889 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2017
In re Timothy Leslie, Dakota County Sheriff, State of Minnesota v. John David Emerson 889 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2017
(alterations in original) (quoting Minneapolis Star & ).
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-61, 763-64 (Minn. 2007).
Marriage of Ihde v. Ihde 800 N.W.2d 808 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Ihde v. Ihde 800 N.W.2d 808 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
A writ of prohibition may be issued only if “(1) an inferior court or tribunal is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of such power will result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy.” (quotation and alterations omitted).
In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Underdahl 749 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Underdahl 749 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(quoting Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351, 357 , ).