Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. State, 801 N.W.2d 173.

62 citing documents.

Washington v. State 845 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Washington v. State 845 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, (offender’s motion); -77 (Minn.2011) (offender’s motion); (state’s motion).
Orozco v. State 841 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Orozco v. State 841 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The interpretation of a procedural rule is subject to de novo review.”
State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(procedural rules); (sentencing statutes).
Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Lussier v. State 821 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2012
Lussier v. State 821 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2012
Act of June 2, 2005, ch. 136, art. 14, § 13, 2005 Minn. Laws 901 , 1098
State v. Mulcahy 816 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Mulcahy 816 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
ANALYSIS “The interpretation of a procedural rule is subject to de novo review.” ce rt.