Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sailee, 792 N.W.2d 90.

37 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: Z. C. W., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: Z. C. W., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Ahmedfowzi Haji Ismail Minn. Ct. App. 2025
These are referred to as “the Lindsey factors.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Scott Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Re the Custody of: B. G. F.; Matthew Ryan Foede v. Courtney Ann-Nicole Vaughn, County of Sherburne, … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Heidi Ann Collins v. Angel Marie Morgan Below, Brandon Lee St. George Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Morex Properties, LLC v. Sauro & Bergstrom, PLLC, Warner Law Office, AllenMax Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating adverse rulings by a judge, alone, do not constitute judicial bias), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Marcelo Mendez Zepeta Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee Banks, Bail Bonds Doctor, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Terance Simmons v. Judge Jamie L. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Children of: S. L. L. and M. J. T., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Jacinda Eve Mills v. Joshua James Mills Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Nicholas David Wivinus v. Nicole Lynette Nelson Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Moses Louis Hubert Minn. Ct. App. 2021
If a reviewing court determines that the district court improperly excluded evidence, “the conviction will still sta nd if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” review denied (Minn. March 15, 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Galle Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Juan Silva Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Korie Jermaine Wash Minn. Ct. App. 2020
VI; 7 n.1 (Minn. 2006) (“Statements in a complaint are hearsay, implicating confrontation concerns.”); (holding that admitting a prior criminal complaint plainly violates a defendant’s confrontation rights) , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Sedale Raymond Roloff Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Massoud Amin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. March 15, 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Emil Pexa Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The district court 5 ultimately prevented the admission of evidence of an alternat ive perpetrator because appellant did not provide notice to the state pursuant to State v. Sailee , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Chris Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Sailee , review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Kay Vogt v. Gary Dennis Vogt Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court’s rulings are not indi cative of bias, and furthermore “[a]dverse rulings by a judge, with out more, do not constitu te judicial bias.” State v. Sailee , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Donald Deundre Harris, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Roger Edward Naghash Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-96 (Minn. App. 2010) (holding that “[d]ue process requires that a judge have no actual bias against a defendant or an interest in a case’s outcome,” but that “adverse rulings by a judge, without more, do not constitute judicial bias”) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Clint Scott Bearce Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(holding that a district court’s “failure to consider the Lindsey factors is a n abuse of discretion”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Donny Warren v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Starnes Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Due process requires that a judge have no actual bias agains t a defendant or an interest in a case’s outcome.” (citing Bracy v. Gramley , 520 U.S. 899, 904-05, 1 17 S. Ct. 1793, 1797 (1997)), review denied (Mar.
State of Minnesota v. DeSean Lamont Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We have said that “failure to consider the Lindsey factors is an abuse of discretion.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Quincy Darnell Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(holding that a district court’s “failure to consider the Lindsey factors is an abuse of discretion”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This includes the right “to present evidence showing that an alternative perpetrator committed the crime with which the defendant is charged.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Judicial bias “Due process requires that a judge have no actual bias against a defendant or an interest in a case’s outcome.” (citing Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904–05, 117 S. Ct. 1793, 1797 (1997)), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We review de novo whether a defendant’s due-process right to an impartial judge was violated.” (), review denied (Minn. Mar.