Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550.

224 citing documents.

Roman Nose v. State 845 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2014
Roman Nose v. State 845 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2014
Not only did we note in Chambers that "none” of the exceptions in subdivision 4(b) would allow the court to hear Chambers’ petition, Chambers, d at 331 , we have made clear in the past that the "interests of justice” exception to the time bar cannot be based "on the substantive merit of the claim raised in the petition for postconviction relief.”
Erickson v. State 842 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2014
Erickson v. State 842 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2014
State v. Pederson 840 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Pederson 840 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
An appellate court’s “goal in statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature’s intent.”
Greer v. State 836 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2013
Greer v. State 836 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
An appellate court’s “goal in statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature’s intent.”
Wayne v. State 832 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2013
Wayne v. State 832 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2013
State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
Our inquiry as to whether section 609.487, subdivision 6, includes a specific-intent element requires us to interpret the statute so as to “ascertain and give effect to the Legislature’s intent.”
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Second Chance Investments, LLC 827 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2013
Followed Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Second Chance Investments, LLC 827 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2013
("An unambiguous statute must be construed according to its plain language.”).
McDonough v. State 827 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 2013
McDonough v. State 827 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 2013
4(b)(5), arises when the petitioner “knew or should have known that he had a claim.”
Berkovitz v. State 826 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 2013
Berkovitz v. State 826 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 2013
-58 (Minn.2012) (quoting Minn.Stat.
Miller v. State 816 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2012
Miller v. State 816 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2012
-58 (Minn.2012), decided today.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by