Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Knoch, 781 N.W.2d 170.

21 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Trimell Cornell Chamberlain Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Trimell Cornell Chamberlain Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The purpose of rule 28.03 “is to obtain an answer from an appellate court on a question of law that is embedded within a matter pending in the district court.” rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).
Oji Konata Markham, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).
Timothy Hall, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 890 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Timothy Hall, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 890 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The certification should be carefully and precisely framed so as to present distinctly and clearly the question of law involved.” d 170, 175 (Minn. App. 2010) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Jared S. O�Donnell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-73 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The district court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, d 170, 178 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010), and may not “assess[] the relative credibility or weight of .
State of Minnesota v. Ely Ovis Emmanuel Ana El Sabahot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ely Ovis Emmanuel Ana El Sabahot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
this court held that, for purposes of determining the existence of probable cause, there is no “bright- line rule forbidding the use of a field test of a controlled substance.” Id.
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010), this court held that the state may establish probable cause to support the prosecution for possession of a controlled substance based on a field test and without evidence of a confirmatory test.
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 170, 179-80 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
That interpretation is consistent with this court’s caselaw concerning the analogous rule for criminal appeals, which provides that “the purpose of the rule is to obtain an answer from an appellate court on a question of law that is embedded within a matter pending in the district court.” , 176 (Minn.App.2010), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).
State v. Gerard 832 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Gerard 832 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).
State v. Arends 786 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“[T]he purpose of the rule [of certification procedure] is to obtain an answer from an appellate court on a question of law that is embedded within a matter pending in the district court.” review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).