Cited by

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

141 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. E. M. L Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Jason Ryan Williams 862 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Ryan Williams 862 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2015
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. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we may reverse the district court when the district court’s ruling “is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
Nissalke v. State 861 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 2015
Nissalke v. State 861 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 2015
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.”
De-Aunteze Lavion Bobo v. State of Minnesota 860 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2015
De-Aunteze Lavion Bobo v. State of Minnesota 860 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks 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.”
Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
As we have recognized, "[a] court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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.”
Kim Thul Ouk v. State 847 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2014
Kim Thul Ouk v. State 847 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2014
“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.”
Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
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.”
Resendiz v. State 832 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Resendiz v. State 832 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Clifton v. State 830 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 2013
Clifton v. State 830 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 2013
We afford “great deference” to the postconviction “court’s findings of fact and will not reverse the findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
The “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.’ ” ().
Riley v. State 819 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2012
Riley v. State 819 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2012
Riley v. State (Riley II)
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
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
Miles v. State 800 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 2011
Miles v. State 800 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 2011
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 797 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 2011
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 797 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 2011