Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677.
- State of Minnesota v. Cree Rae Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Cree Rae Larson
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
–84 (Minn. 2009) (holding that exclusion of breath-test results critically impacted prosecution’s case).
- Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 848 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2014
-
Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety
848 N.W.2d 206
Minn. 2014
We have referred to the hearing held on the driver’s petition for judicial review as the "implied consent hearing.”
- State v. Cubas 838 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-
State v. Cubas
838 N.W.2d 220
Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“[A] pretrial order will only be reversed if the [sjtate 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 v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
-
State v. Zais
805 N.W.2d 32
Minn. 2011
The State has the burden of showing “clearly and unequivocally (1) that the district court’s ruling was erroneous and (2) that the ruling will have a ‘critical impact’ on the State’s ability to prosecute the case.” ().
- State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
- State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Coleman 793 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 2011
-
In re Disciplinary Action Against Coleman
793 N.W.2d 296
Minn. 2011
See Rule 14(b), RLPR; Marquette Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Cnty.
- State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
- State v. Crane 766 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-
State v. Crane
766 N.W.2d 68
Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Our analysis of the possession issue is guided by the supreme court’s , 2009 WL 1150093 (Minn. Apr.30, 2009) (Underdahl IP, pet.