Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496.

425 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhm 880 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Micheal Serna Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Micheal Serna Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Denial of Motion to Suppress Evidence “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determination de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse 878 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse 878 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Brandon Cochran Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Brandon Cochran Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We may independently review facts that are not in dispute, and ‘determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.’” ().
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Branden Lee Pollard v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections 878 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 (stating that “[t]he reply brief must be confined to new matter raised in the brief of the respondent”); (stating that appellate courts “generally will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal”).
State of Minnesota v. Khong Meng Kong Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Khong Meng Kong Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Shuly Marambo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shuly Marambo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sherman Peak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Renaye Kroells Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Renaye Kroells Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sherman Peak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Earl Westergaard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faith Annette Jenson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Earl Westergaard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, [an appellate court] review[s] the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Faith Annette Jenson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A]n inventory search conducted pursuant to a standard police procedure prior to lawfully impounding an automobile is not unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Vernon David Matter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vernon David Matter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jodi Lynette Lacy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jodi Lynette Lacy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Andrew Syversrud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Andrew Syversrud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alan David Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 877 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 877 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alan David Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. George Edward Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Edward Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Laurel Rasmussen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Laurel Rasmussen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Iri Armando Ruiz-Deleon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Fredrick Aguirre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Fredrick Aguirre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Iri Armando Ruiz-Deleon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court found Officer Bataglia’s testimony to be “credible in all respects.” When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, “[appellate courts] review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tou Vang Pal Lor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tou Vang Pal Lor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[T]he threshold inquiry when determining the reasonableness of an inventory search is whether the impoundment of the vehicle was proper.”).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Joseph Wollenberg Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Joseph Wollenberg Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An appellate court “review[s] the district court’s factual findings 3 under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tavaires Higgins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tavaires Higgins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Case Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Case Minn. Ct. App. 2015