Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Grigsby, 818 N.W.2d 511.

38 citing documents.

Arianna Anderson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
6 The Residents argue that Beaulieu was wrongly decided, but we are “not in a position to overturn established supreme court precedent.” (quotation omitted), aff’d
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings under an abuse -of-discretion standard even when it is claimed that excluding the evidence deprived the defendant of the constitutional right to present a complete defense.” aff’d
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(recognizing 6 that the court of appeals is “an error-correcting court” that cannot “overturn” supreme court precedent (quotation omitted)), aff’d
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
However, if an appellate court “determines 9 that the district court ’s evidentiary ruling denied the defendant the right to present a complete defense, reversal is required unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” aff’d
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
established supreme court precedent” (quotation omitted)), aff’d
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
aff’d on other grounds, d 511 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
d 511, 517 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Essar Global Fund Limited, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We are "an error-correcting court," State v. Grigsby , , 114 (Minn. App. 2011), aff'd , and lack the supreme court's supervisory power, see State v. Ramey , , 302 n.6 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Final Exit Network, Inc. 889 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Followed State of Minnesota v. Final Exit Network, Inc. 889 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
aff’d (affirming this court’s use of Minnesota Supreme Court precedent).
State of Minnesota v. Tammy Jo Schoenrock Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tammy Jo Schoenrock Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that rule of lenity does not apply if challenged statute is unambiguous); (stating that doctrine of in pari materia is not used absent statutory ambiguity).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“As an error-correcting court, this court is not in a position to overturn established supreme court precedent.” (quotation omitted), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Frank Lucellerson Tubbs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Frank Lucellerson Tubbs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” (noting this court’s role as “an error-correcting court”), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Deonte Lewis-Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Deonte Lewis-Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Casey Craig Schueneman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Casey Craig Schueneman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In order to assert a procedural due-process claim, “a person must establish the loss of a protectable liberty or property interest.”
Benard Nyangate Mauti v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Benard Nyangate Mauti v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
of any other part” of the statement); (requiring party seeking review to disclose record of unredacted statement to permit meaningful appellate review), aff’d
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
–08 (Minn. App. 2011), aff’d, n.4 (Minn. 2013) (noting that failure to seek a writ of prohibition waives an issue involving peremptory removal in a postconviction context).
State of Minnesota v. Erik Alan Vacek Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Erik Alan Vacek Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ivan Ray Vaughan v. Wade Setter, Superintendant, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ivan Ray Vaughan v. Wade Setter, Superintendant, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(procedural); In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation, (substantive).
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013