Cited by

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

425 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Tabashish Anamiki Ogitchida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tabashish Anamiki Ogitchida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Abdinasser Yusuf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gentry Allan Needham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Abdinasser Yusuf 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. Gentry Allan Needham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashad Jemeir Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashad Jemeir Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The motion to suppress the cash “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. Ricardo Leonard Bowman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alex Robert Galvan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alex Robert Galvan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo Leonard Bowman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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.” State v. 3 Gauster, (quotation omitted).
Russelle Anthony Wech v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Russelle Anthony Wech v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
3 determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Garry Leroy Gehrke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Mikal Leritz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Mikal Leritz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Garry Leroy Gehrke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Willie Ester Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ester Waters 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 5 district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Adam Alvarado Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Alvarado Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[W]e 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. Fredrick William Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick William Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that because the suppression of evidence led to the dismissal of the charges, the suppression had a critical impact on the outcome of the case).
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. Zacarias Lopez Sarmiento Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Zacarias Lopez Sarmiento Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Sue Thorne Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Sue Thorne Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Zachary Michael Staples Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. James Irving Dale Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. James Irving Dale Minn. Ct. App. 2014
I. “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. Zachary Michael Staples Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. Carmilla J. Thibodeau-Schoeszler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carmilla J. Thibodeau-Schoeszler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Erica Ann Rohde 852 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 2014
(citing Ture, d at 627).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Joseph Poitra Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew William Serres Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew William Serres Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Joseph Poitra Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that critical impact is present when suppression of evidence leads to the dismissal of charges); (concluding that “[d]ismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement” in a case where only one count of a multi
State of Minnesota v. John Alvin Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Alvin Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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 v. 5 Gauster, (
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014