Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fellegy, 819 N.W.2d 700.

28 citing documents.

Simon Christopher Mueller v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We may affirm the district court’s decision “on any ground, including one not relied on by the [postconviction ] court.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Ahmedfowzi Haji Ismail Minn. Ct. App. 2025
1.04 (“Whenever these rules require that an act be done by a lawyer, the same duty is required of a self-represented litigant.”); (“[P]ro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with all rules of procedure.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Deshawn Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Pro se parties “ are generally held to the same standards as attorneys,” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Bruce Ray Fairbanks v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
4 Although the district court did not invoke the law-of-the-case doctrine as a basis to deny Fairbanks’s motion, “[w]e may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Luther Boris Cousette Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.” (citing Kafka v. O’Malley, ), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jontrail Wesley Dawson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“We may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.” (citing Kafka v. O’Malley, ), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2024
2 (explaining that district courts may appoint advisory counsel based on concerns for fairness or delays to the trial); (explaining that “pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with all rules of procedure” ), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Steven Todd Parker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
aff’d on other grounds, ; (“We may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Randall Thomas Graham Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Randall Thomas Graham Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“We may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Martens Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Martens Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1(5), the reviewing court “may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
about “catching [Theng] with some other guy in bed.” (“We may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Tracy Nuthak v. Scott Nuthak Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Gruenhagen v. Larson , (stating that court will not modify ordinary rules and procedures because a self-represented party lacks the skills and knowledge of an attorney); rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Deandre ONeil Jackman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Fellegy , -08 (Minn. App. 2012) (reviewing request for evidentiary hearing on pretrial motion to dismiss charges) , review denied (Minn. Oct.
Daniel Lynn Conley v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We may affirm the district court on any gro und, including one not relied on by the district court.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Archie Leon Price Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And appellate courts “may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Duane Cedric Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 410 (concluding that because out-of-court statements to nurses were admissible under the residual exception, district court’s error in admitting them under medical-diagnosis exception was harmless); see also 10 State v. Fellegy , (“We may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Howard Stanke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
Joseph Bergeron v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“We may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Maurice Lovell Anderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Maurice Lovell Anderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that the supreme court will not “reverse on appeal a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons”); (“We may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Shannon Hollie v. Lucinda E. Jesson, Commissioner of Department of Human Services, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Shannon Hollie v. Lucinda E. Jesson, Commissioner of Department of Human Services, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“We may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(noting, in a civil case, that the supreme court will not “reverse on appeal a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons”); (“We may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.