Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Caldwell, 803 N.W.2d 373.

222 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Larry Eugene Burrell, Jr. Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
Minn. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jason James Loveless Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Sharif R. Alhammouri Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We assume that the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Katherine Ella Hoene v. Matthew Arnold Kramar Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Moses Louis Hubert Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any 4 evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Ronaldo Serrano-Santana Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Raymond Glaser, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Allison Ann Mastin Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Cortez Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We assu me that “the jury believe d the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lamar Tallman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In doing so, we assume that “the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any ev idence to the contrary.” See State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Carter John Ibberson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
Tyler Halva v. Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Minn. 2021
Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 17 444 U.S. 11, 19 (1979) (“[I]t is an elemental canon of statutory construction that where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it.”); (explaining the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius); Lindemer, 2020 WL 4572201, at *13–14 (reasoning that the Legislature’s provision of remedies for violations of one section of Minn. Stat. ch. 192 (2020) indicates that it did not intend to provide a re
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Donald Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Richmel Van Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Angelica Shantel Easterling Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We assume that “the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Richard James Gibson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Robert Alonzo Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This court “must assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jon Andrew Burlingame Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kenny Lee Reed v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Caldwell , (explaining that “testimony is not unknown to the petitioner when a potential witness is present at the scene of the crime with the petitioner, and the petitioner knows the substance of the testimony that the witness might provide”).
State of Minnesota (A18-1999) (A18-1957,) v. Torrance Lee Royster (A18-1957) (A18-1999) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. James Robert Bazoff Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Carla Leanne Keezer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbe lieved any evidence to the contr ary.” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).
Prince Lashone Holt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Allegations in a postconviction petition must be “more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Semaj Maurice Dow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Troy Michael Wierson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contr ary.” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Xieng Khan Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume that “the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses a nd disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v.Caldwell, (quotation omitted).
Deondre Lashawn Bishop v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume that the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lee Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” d 373, 384 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dupree Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” State v. Caldwell , ( quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Laurie Ann McIntyre Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” State v. Caldwell , ( quotation omitted).
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Moore , , 121-22 (Minn. App. 2015) (quoting State v. Caldwell , , 384 (Minn. 2011) ), review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).
State of Minnesota (A18-0876) (A18-1246) v. Casey Daniel Bauer (A18-0876) (A18-1246) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Such an outc ome would be inconsistent with a defendant’s right to “a jury determination that he is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged.” State v. Moore , -22 (Minn. App. 2015) (quoting State v. Caldwell , ), review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We must assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Lee Setterstrom Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rosalee Ann Grace Pickett Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We must assume that the 4 fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to t he contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Abdiqadar Salah Kasim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We must assume that the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
Michael David Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Allegations in a postconviction petition must be “more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Gregorio Zuniga-Vallejo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court must assume that the fact -finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Karl Edward Henze Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume that “the jury believed th e state’s witnesses and disbel ieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Mattson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume that “the jury believed the sta te’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Scott Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court “must assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omi tted).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Roy Kiefat, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Christina Vanda Garza Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’ s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Desean Demetrius Crayton Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We a ssume that “the jury believed t he state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jerrod Daylyn Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We must assume that the fact -finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).