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. Yang, 774 N.W.2d 539.

231 citing documents.

  • Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A. 842 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A. 842 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    717 n. 2 (Minn.App.1990), review denied (Minn. Sept.
  • Frisch v. State 840 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • Frisch v. State 840 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    A similar procedural bar applies to second and successive postconviction petitions: “matters raised or known but not raised in an earlier petition for postconviction relief will generally not be considered in subsequent petitions for postconviction relief.” (applying Knaffla and Powers to district court’s decision to treat motion to amend postconviction petition as second postconviction petition).
  • State v. Turrubiates 830 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Turrubiates 830 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    “As a general rule, a defendant’s remorse bears only on a decision whether or not to depart dispositionally, not on a decision to depart durationally....” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Craig 826 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Craig 826 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
  • Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
  • Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
    “A party is entitled to a specific jury instruction if evidence exists at trial to support the instruction.”
  • State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
    We consider “three categories of evidence relevant to an inference of premeditation: planning activity, motive, and the nature of the killing.”
  • State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
    See, (holding that defense counsel’s failure to submit written closing argument, as defense counsel and the State had agreed to do, was not structural error); , 251 n. 6 (Minn.2010) (holding that error in continuing trial in the defendant’s absence was not structural error); (holding that correcting jury instructions while the district court was reading the instructions to the jury was not structural error); , 302 n. 4 (Minn.2008) (noting that the denial of the right to peremptorily remove a jud
  • State v. Nelson 806 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Nelson 806 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
    (concluding that an argument in an alley and a physical fight “provided strong evidence of motive”).
  • State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    See, (rejecting argument that erroneous jury instruction constitutes structural error and noting that harmless-error analysis applies to erroneous jury instructions); -59 (Minn.2001) (analyzing whether an erroneous jury instruction was harmless).
  • State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
    To demonstrate that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel, Nissalke “must show that (1) his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” -65 (Minn.2009); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    (finding that because appellant had raised an issue for the first time in his reply brief and the state did not address the issue in its brief, the issue “was not proper subject matter for appellant’s reply brief’ and was thus waived and stricken).
  • Paquin v. MacK 788 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 2010
  • Paquin v. MacK 788 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
    We note that we have decided a separate appeal arising from this incident, State v. Yang, Case Nos. N.W.2d 539 (Minn. Oct.