Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Burrell, 743 N.W.2d 596.

83 citing documents.

Otis Rodney Elder, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
To rebut this presumption, there must be “evidence of favoritism or antagonism.”
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An opinion “formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do[es] not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality 11 motion unless [it] display[s] a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Anita Jurevica v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Anita Jurevica v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The mere fact that a party declares a judge partial does not in itself generate a reasonable question as to the judge’s impartiality.” - 02 (Minn. 2008).
In re the Marriage of: David Scott Pederson v. Elizabeth Joan Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Scott Pederson v. Elizabeth Joan Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Travis William Mylo Cleary 882 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Travis William Mylo Cleary 882 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[T]he fact that a judge avows he is impartial does not in itself put his impartiality beyond 11 reasonable question.”
Daniel Morris Johnson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Daniel Morris Johnson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Further, “[t]he mere fact that a party declares a judge partial does not in itself generate a reasonable question as to the judge’s impartiality.” -02 (Minn. 2008).
Ramsey County, Laniesha M. Williams v. Nathan D. Washington, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ramsey County, Laniesha M. Williams v. Nathan D. Washington, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A judge may not preside over a proceeding if he or she is not impartial, including instances in which a judge has a “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
However, “[t]he mere fact that a party declares a judge partial does not in itself generate a reasonable question as to the judge’s impartiality.” -02 (Minn.2008).
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In determining whether a judge is an impartial fact-finder, “the question is whether an objective examination of the facts and circumstances would cause a reasonable examiner to question the judge’s impartiality.”
State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
a writ of prohibition.’ ” (quoting State v. Cer *832 mak, ).
State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
“The mere fact that a party declares a judge partial does not in itself generate a reasonable question as to the judge’s impartiality.” State v. Burrell (Burrell II)
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 , 114 S.Ct.
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008