Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d 8.

255 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Scotty William Polchow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[Appellate courts] will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).
Edna Musu Swaray, Relator v. Commissioner of Health Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Edna Musu Swaray, Relator v. Commissioner of Health Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffray Leallen Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffray Leallen Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(affirming admission of Spreigl evidence in part because identity was central issue and other evidence 11 was not dispositive); Blom, d at 613 (affirming admission of Spreigl evidence in part because identity was at issue and physical evidence
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laura Kay Ellingsworth, Hennepin County v. Moses Wazwaz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laura Kay Ellingsworth, Hennepin County v. Moses Wazwaz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“‘The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’” (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09, 98 S. Ct. 330, 332 (1977)).
Aaron Wayne Downing v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aaron Wayne Downing v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[Appellate courts] will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
( (“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”)).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Tyrone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Tyrone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[Appellate courts] will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[Appellate courts] will not consider pro se claims that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).
State of Minnesota v. Livinus Ndubisi Ezeobi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Livinus Ndubisi Ezeobi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[Appellate courts] will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(deeming appellant to have waived claims of error that “[we]re lacking in supportive arguments and/or legal authority” where “no prejudicial error [wa]s obvious on mere inspection” (quotation omitted)); (declining to address argument for whic
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Typically, this court does not “consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Aaron Aldrich Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Aaron Aldrich Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that appellate court will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by citations to legal authority).
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Ann Maxwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Ann Maxwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 8, 22 (Minn. 2008) (holding that an appellate court need “not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Moreover, a district court’s instructions to the jury as to the use of rule 404(b) testimony can “lessen[] the probability of undue 13 weight being given by the jury to the evidence,” (quotation omitted), and the district court gave such an instruction before K.U.’s testimony and at the close of trial.
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roxanne Kay DeFlorin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roxanne Kay DeFlorin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).
State of Minnesota v. Yuri Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yuri Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We need “not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2015
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2015
-23 (Minn.2008) (refusing to consider pro se claims "that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”); , 446 n. 6 (Minn.2006) (dismissing a catchall claim because it lacked factual support); , 448 n. 1 (Minn.2005) (refusing
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An appellate court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “[supreme court] will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Benton 858 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Benton 858 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2015
(“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).
State of Minnesota v. Wayne William Leistico Minn. Ct. App. 2015