Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677.

115 citing documents.

In re the Welfare of I.N.A. 902 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Foreign Subpoena’s Request for Jurisdictional Subpoena’s for Aaron Jordan and Dwight Walvatne Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See In re Coleman , (“We review a referee’s decision to quash a subpoena and to allow a witness’s deposition into evidence for an abuse of discretion.”); State v. Underdahl , (“A district court judge has wide discretion to issue discovery orders, and normally an order will not be overturned without clear abuse of that discretion.” (quotations omitted)).
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A16-1766 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sarah B. Janecek, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Paula Polinsky, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Thomas 891 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
State v. Thomas 891 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
The rules must be read as a whole, and “in light of one another,” Shamrock Dev.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Suncom, LLC v. Robert Feuling d/b/a West Side Liquors of Sartell, LLC, and West Side Liquors of Sartell, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Suncom, LLC v. Robert Feuling d/b/a West Side Liquors of Sartell, LLC, and West Side Liquors of Sartell, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Russell Severtson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Russell Severtson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Edward Reps Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Edward Reps Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Somsalao Thonesavanh 880 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Somsalao Thonesavanh 880 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A] pretrial order will only be reversed if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the [district] court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(considering whether district court findings in pre-trial order were clearly erroneous).
State of Minnesota v. David Ernest Osorio 872 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ernest Osorio 872 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] pretrial order will only be reversed if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the [district] court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James Nils Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Nils Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 868 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 868 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2015
(holding that “an order that dismisses DWI charges, even when other charges remain, will have a critical impact on the prosecution’s case”); State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 353 , (holding that a pretrial order suppressing the results of an alcohol concentration test was appea
Terry Anne Boggs v. David Carl Boggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terry Anne Boggs v. David Carl Boggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To find an abuse of discretion, we “must conclude that the district court erred by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Benjamin Jacobs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Benjamin Jacobs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The state need not “show that conviction is impossible after the pretrial order—only that the prosecution’s likelihood of success is seriously jeopardized.”
Rachel Marie Davies f/k/a Rachel Marie Mehralian v. Ali Mehralian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rachel Marie Davies f/k/a Rachel Marie Mehralian v. Ali Mehralian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To find an abuse of discretion, we “must conclude that the district court erred by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, Below, Michelle L. MacDonald v. David Victor Rucki, Linda Olup, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, Below, Michelle L. MacDonald v. David Victor Rucki, Linda Olup, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To prevail in a pretrial appeal, the state must “demonstrate[] clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.”
State of Minnesota v. David Homer South Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Homer South Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] pretrial order will only be reversed if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the [district] court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
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. Brandon Joseph Poitra Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Joseph Poitra Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] pretrial order will only be reversed if the [s]tate demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the [district] court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. John Alvin Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Alvin Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The state need not “show that conviction is impossible after the pretrial order—only that the prosecution’s likelihood of success is seriously jeopardized.”