Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Riley v. State, 792 N.W.2d 831.

139 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous 24 view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A [district] court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts on the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Douglas James Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Douglas James Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Guy Israel Greene. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A [district] court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
Travis Clay Andersen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Travis Clay Andersen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
Adrian Dominic Riley v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2025
Adrian Dominic Riley v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin, Appellant Minn. 2025
“A [district] court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
Albert George McIntosh, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(holding that appellant’s petition for postconviction relief that included argument that indictment violated double jeopardy, res judicata, and collateral estoppel was time-barred)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of J. D. C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on an 4 erroneous view of the law or its decision “is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Delilah Golden Metoxen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Delilah Golden Metoxen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shanell Jane Patience Gofan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shanell Jane Patience Gofan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Vernard Glover Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Vernard Glover Minn. 2024
“A court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” d 831, 833 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Craig Morrow Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Steven Craig Morrow Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court abuses 5 its discretion when it bases its decision on an erroneous view of the law or its decision “is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Reginald Scott Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Reginald Scott Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Henry Albert Allison, Jr. Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Henry Albert Allison, Jr. Minn. 2024
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an 12 erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
6 (2022), reconsideration granted and denied (Minn. April 22, 2011), which appellant cites in support of the applicability of that statute, does not include the word “technical.” 8 But when the district court described appellant’s violations as “not technical in nature,” it was observing that all appellant’
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court abuses its discretion if “‘its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law.’” Soto, d at 308 n.1 ().
In the Matter of: Natasha Elizabeth Ann Isenhower, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(d 831, 833 (Minn. 2011)); (“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court abuses its discretion if “‘ its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law.’” Soto, d at 308 n.1 ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court abuses its discretion if “‘ its decision is based 6 on an erroneous view of the law.’” Soto, d at 308 n.1 ().
Marcel Moses, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Tywan Rulford, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
In the Matter of: Elizabeth A. Frandrup, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(quoting Riley v. State , ).
Minn. 2022
“A court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
A21-0480 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
8 erroneous view of the law or is agains t logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
De-Aunteze Lavion Bobo, Minn. 2022
A district “court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” 7 Minnesota Statutes § 590.01, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district cour t “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022