Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Vang v. State, 788 N.W.2d 111.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction when it lacks “authority to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions that the court assumes to decide.”
Tokvan Ly v. Jodi Harpstead, Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services 7 N.W.3d 560 Minn. 2024
Tokvan Ly v. Jodi Harpstead, Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services 7 N.W.3d 560 Minn. 2024
We have invoked it only “[i]n extremely rare and exceptional cases.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(Dietzen, J. concurring) (“[A] district judge may sometimes act as a district court judge with original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters; and other times act as a juvenile court judge with inferior jurisdiction and powers.”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.B.G., Parent. Minn. 2023
(Dietzen, J., concurring) (“[W]hen a district court judge is acting as a juvenile court judge, that judge is limited by the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as provided in chapter 260.”).
Lannon Lavar Burdunice, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Instead, he argues that the Knaffla rule does not apply because he raised “subject-matter jurisdiction defect[s].” The district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction if it “does not have the authority to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions that the court assumes to decide.” (Minn .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court lacks subject - matter jurisdiction when it “does not have the authority to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions that the court assumes to decide.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A court lacks subject- matter jurisdiction when it “does not have the authority to hear and determine a particular 3 class of actions and the particular questio ns that the court assumes to decide.”
Dylan Matthew Deling, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A child may waive the right to a certification hearing if the waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently after the child is fully and effectively informed of the right.”
Larry Demetrius Pearson, Minn. 2020
to support his contention that we can reach the merits of his claim even if it is untimely, these cases are inapposite.
Yusuf Ahmed Yusuf, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 111, 117 ( Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. C. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A court lacks subject -matter jurisdiction when it “does not have the authority to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions that the court assumes to decide.” Vang v. State
Dikken v. State 896 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 2017
Dikken v. State 896 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 2017
Timothy Ayman Bakdash, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“When the court lacks subject -matter jurisdiction over a proceeding at the time it imposes a sentence, the sentence is void.”).
Kim Thul Ouk v. State of Minnesota 884 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2016
Kim Thul Ouk v. State of Minnesota 884 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2016
P. 32.05 (1991); -17 (Minn. 2010).
Mark Jeffrey Koelndorfer v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. M. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. M. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that when certification is ordered, the district court “is not required to make specific findings on each factor” and is only required to demonstrate that it “fully investigated the matter and carefully considered its decision”).
Somlith Vongphasouk v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Somlith Vongphasouk v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 111 (Minn. 2010), to support this argument.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When the district court orders certification, it “is not required to make specific findings on each factor” and is only required to “fully investigate[] the matter and carefully consider[] its decision.”
Nicholas Robert Schimmel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
(stating that “the juvenile court is not required to make specific findings on each factor”).
Stern v. Stern 839 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Stern v. Stern 839 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
This was recognized by Justice Dietzen when he explained: "The potential problem with having a district judge wear different ‘hats' as a district court and juvenile court judge is that the judge must clarify on the record the capacity upon which the judge acts.” (Dietzen, J„ concurring).
In re the Welfare of R.D.M. 825 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of R.D.M. 825 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
1(B); (citing rule 18.05 and stating that “[a] child may waive the right to a certification hearing if the waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently after the child is fully and effectively informed of the right”).
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
where we used our inherent authority to review the merits of the claim raised in Vang’s petition for postconviction relief without first determining whether the petition was timely brought under Minn.Stat.
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
The dissent cites only two cases — —which deal directly with the time limits in the post-conviction statute at issue here.
State v. Ali 806 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 2011
State v. Ali 806 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 2011
Genei'ally, “[t]he juvenile court has original and exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerning children alleged to be delinquent prior to having become 18 years of age.” see Minn.Stat.
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
Our inherent authority to hear an appeal in the interests of justice comes from Minn. Const, art. VI, § 2, which states that this court has “appellate jurisdiction in all cases.”