Cited by

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

141 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Blake Scott Veen 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 v. Jaren Joseph Dodds Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Isaac Alonzo Cryer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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 v. Tywan George Christopher Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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.”
A20-0206 A20-0228 A20-0229 Minn. 2021
Partners III-Lofts, LLC, d 831, 833 (Minn. 2011) (“ In reviewing a postconviction court’ s denial of relief, issues of law are reviewed de novo.”).
Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin, Minn. 2021
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 v. Joseph Earl Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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 v. Damon Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an e rroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Raymond Greenbush Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A court abuses its di scretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is agains t logic and the facts in the record.”
Minn. 2020
A district court abuses its discretion when its decision to deny relief is “against logic and the facts in the record” or “based on an erroneous view of the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Danielle Judith Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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.” Riley v. State
Abraham Tony Dolo, Minn. 2020
A postconviction court abuses its discretion when the court’s “decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
Kathryn Ward Blum, et al., Thomas Ward v. Molly Thompson, et al., Ward Family, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The district court abuses its discretion when its ruling “is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Josi Ann Adelman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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 v. Justin Matthew Girling Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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.”
Hayley Elizabeth Kytta v. Corey Strecker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota (A18-1655) (A18-1490) v. Brian Joseph Andvik (A18-1490) (A18-1655) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Michael Alan Bunnell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.” Riley v. State
State v. Harvey 932 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2019
State v. Harvey 932 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2019
Riley v. State , , 833 (Minn. 2011).
Cynthia Padilla v. Minneapolis Police Department Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Scott David Auginaush Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court abuses its discretion if “its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” see also Soto , d at 308 n.1 ( ).
State v. Boettcher 931 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2019
State v. Boettcher 931 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2019
Riley v. State , , 833 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Arcelus Antonio Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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.” Riley v. State
State of Minnesota v. Tracy Lynn Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
’” Soto, d at 308 n.1 ( ).
State of Minnesota v. James Earl Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based o n an “erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Paul Hernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Johann Richard Sebastian Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision “on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State v. Overweg 914 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Overweg 914 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
*412 Riley v. State , , 833 (Minn. 2011).
A17-1651 A17-1652 State of Minnesota v. Annette Marie Klapstein (A17-1649), Emily Nesbitt Johnston (A17-1650), Steven Robert Liptay (A17-1651), … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
However, even under this standard, appellate courts may reverse a district cour t’s D-2 ruling when that ruling is “based on an erroneous view of the law.” ().
In the Matter of: Tracy Elizabeth Thompson and o/b/o Minor Child, Minn. 2018
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 v. Cristian Albert Genchi-Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Zane Robert Stigen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an e rroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State v. Mosley 895 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2017
State v. Mosley 895 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2017
A postcon- *590 viction 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. Desean Lamont Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based “on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and facts in the record.”
State v. Thomas 891 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
State v. Thomas 891 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
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 John Olson 884 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Douglas John Olson 884 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 2016
(applying a clearly erroneous standard to the factual findings underlying a discretionary decision).
Jason Dean Ligtenberg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Dean Ligtenberg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A postconviction 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. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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) (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. E. M. L Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court abuses its discretion when basing its decision on “an erroneous view of the law.”