Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Martin v. MORRISON TRUCKING, INC., 765 N.W.2d 639.

43 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
” -7 (Minn. App. 2023) ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Prellwitz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 639, 643 (Minn. 2009); see U.S. Const. amends.
Newland Derrick Hambrick, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
see also State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990) (noting that appellate courts have a duty to decide cases in accordance with the law).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309 (1991)) (acknowledging that “the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the denial of counsel is a structural error”); (“Because the district court’s error was not a violatio
A22-1093 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ricky Arlen Turner, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We review a postconviction court’s findings of fact for an abuse of discretion and questions of law de novo.” (citations omitted).
A20-0547 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The denial of the right to counsel “is a structural error.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The denial of the right to counsel “is a structural error.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The denial of the right to counsel “is a structural error,” d 639, 643 (Minn. 2009), that “does not require a showing of prej udice to obtain reversal,”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The denial of the right to counsel “is a structural error,” that “does not require a showing of prejudice to obtain reversal.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The denial of the right to counsel “is a structural error.” d 639, 643 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-43 (Minn. 2009); n.2 (Minn. 2007).
Baron Montero Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian Robert Winsor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The denial of the right to counsel “is a structural error,” that “does not require a showing of prejudice to obtain reversal.”
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-43 (Minn. 2009); Powers, d at 501 n.2.
Jolonda Rae Roberts v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–43 (Minn. 2009) (citing cases interpreting the postconviction statute as broad enough to encompass a rule 27.03 motion).
State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles 862 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 2015
Keith Allen Halland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The supreme court considered a situation similar to Halland’s
Washington v. State 845 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In a later case, the district court had treated the appellant-offender’s previous challenge to his sentence as a postconviction petition, which provided the district court with a basis for concluding that the subsequent postconviction petition was barred by the statutory prohibition on successive petitions.
Townsend v. State 834 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2013
-43 (Minn.2009) (noting that section 590.01 “is sufficiently broad to encompass” a rule 27.03, subdivision 9 motion but declining to address whether the district court erred by treating the motion as a postconviction petition).
State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
at 316 (-43 (Minn.2009); , 501 n.2 (Minn.2007)).
State v. Maddox 825 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The denial of the right to counsel “is a structural error,” that “does not require a showing of prejudice to obtain reversal,”
Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-43 (Minn.2009); , 501 n. 2 (Minn.2007).
State v. Henry 809 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Martin v. Morrison Trucking, Inc. 803 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 2011
Martin v. Morrison Trucking, Inc. 803 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 2011
Martin v. Morrison Trucking, Inc.
Bonga v. State 797 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 2011
In Bonga v. State (Bonga I), we reversed the postconviction court’s summary dismissal of Bonga’s petition.
Francis v. State 781 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
to argue that without legal counsel his first appeal was not meaningful.
State v. DALBEC 781 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(noting that the district court’s failure to recognize a defendant’s right of representation by counsel during a motion to vacate a sentence was a denial of counsel).
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009