DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

425 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    3 clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” (d 149, 152 (Minn. 2007)).
  • State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    This 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 v. Salyers 842 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Salyers 842 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Rohde 839 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    (“[I]nventory searches are now a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement.” (quotation omitted)); see also South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 , 96 S.Ct.
  • State v. Rohde 839 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    “The State bears the burden to prove that the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement exists in a particular case.”
  • State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    (stating that critical impact is present when suppression of evidence leads to the dismissal of charges).
  • State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
    When reviewing a district court’s ruling on a pretrial 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.” () (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Lussier 770 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Lussier 770 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    ANALYSIS “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 v. Crane 766 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Crane 766 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    “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 v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    (holding suppression of evidence resulting in dismissal meets the critical impact requirement).
  • State v. Hughes 758 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Hughes 758 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2008