Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dereje v. State, 837 N.W.2d 714.
-
State of Minnesota v. Mitchell Allan Phillippi
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are generally analyzed as trial errors under Strickland v. Washington, [466 U.S. 668 (1984)].” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Louis Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Louis Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota Office of the Attorney General Minn. 2026
-
State of Minnesota Office of the Attorney General
Minn. 2026
15 “[W]hen different words are used in the same context, we assume that the words have different meanings.”
-
In the Matter of the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust Dated August 9, 1999
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Concepts, (“A contract must be interpreted in a way that gives all of its provisions meaning.”); (applying this principle in the context of interpreting court rules and stating “when different words are used in the same context, we assume that the words have different meanings”).
- State of Minnesota v. Alfredo Torrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Sheila Maurise Burski v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Jason Turner Johnson 8 N.W.3d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Jason Turner Johnson
8 N.W.3d 243
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law that we review de novo.”
- Malachi Henessey Rodriguez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- Malachi Henessey Rodriguez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
Hiscox Insurance Company
Minn. 2023
It is true that “ when different words are used in the same context, we assume that the words have different meanings .”
-
In re the Matter of: E. M. B., DOB February 14, 2014, Sharo’n Lily Isabella Mathison v. Jacqueline …
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
4 (2022).6 Citing the general rule that “when different words are used in the same context, [ this court ] assume[s] that the words have different meanings,” , mother asserts “household” means a “shared living quarter” while “home” refers to a “social unit.”7 Here, because the statute defines neither the word “home” nor “household,” we may look to dictionary definitions to determine the common and ordinary meanings.
-
State of Minnesota v. Jaye William Snyder
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“We interpret court rules in accordance with the rules of grammar and give words and phrases their common and approved usage.” Dereje v. State , ().
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of: K. A. H., Child
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
723 (Minn. 2013) (concluding that counsel’s decision to stipulate to the admi ssion of the complaint and police reports, and agreement not to present witnesses, present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or provide closing argument did not result in structural error); Dalbec, d at 628 (concluding
-
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Campbell
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Campbell contends that his attorn ey entirely failed to challenge the state’s case and was therefore ineffective.
- State of Minnesota v. Karl Alfredo Rosillo Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- State of Minnesota v. Marcus Dupree Jamison Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota v. Yony Galan-Alvillar
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 714, 721 (Minn. 2013).
- State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
- State of Minnesota v. Boyd Jerome Morson, II Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
-
State of Minnesota,
Minn. 2020
“A stipulated fact is [an] agreement between opposing parties regarding the actual event or circumstance.” (concluding that the parties did not conduct a court trial based on stipulated facts but instead had a proper court trial b ased on stipulated exhibits).
- State of Minnesota v. Daniel Negase Asefaw Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Minnesota v. Norman Darnell Toney Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-
State of Minnesota v. Angela Joy Derstine
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Dereje v. State , ( indicating that “when different words are used in t he same context, we assume that the words have different meanings”).
-
State of Minnesota v. Robert Allen Johnson
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-24 (Minn. 2013) (holding that defense counsel did not commit structural error by stipulating to submission of particular evidence with defendant’s consent).
- State of Minnesota v. David Alexander Schill, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- Prince Lashone Holt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- State v. Strobel 932 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2019
-
State v. Strobel
932 N.W.2d 303
Minn. 2019
Dereje v. State , , 720 (Minn. 2013) (noting that we assume that when different words are used in the same context, the words have different meanings).
- State v. Lee 929 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2019
-
State v. Lee
929 N.W.2d 432
Minn. 2019
Dereje v. State , , 720 (Minn. 2013) (quoting State v. Hohenwald , , 829 (Minn. 2012) ).
- Michael David Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- State of Minnesota v. Joseph James Nolan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- State of Minnesota v. David Allen Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-
State of Minnesota v. David Anthony Tonce
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Dereje v. State , (quotation omitte d ) .
-
Charles Winston v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In any event, Winston cannot satisfy the second requirement of an ineffectiveness claim, which requires a petitioner to “show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel ’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068; see also Dereje v. State
-
State of Minnesota v. Davon Allen
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“ The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law that [this court] review[s] de novo.”
-
State of Minnesota v. Morgann Craighead Buie
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(analyzing Minn. R. Crim.
-
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Henry
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We interpret court rules in accordance with the rules of grammar and give words and phrases their common and approved usage.” (quotation and citation omitted).
- State v. Lopez 908 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2018
-
State v. Lopez
908 N.W.2d 334
Minn. 2018
The problem with this analysis is that first-degree burglary is defined differently than second-degree burglary, and our precedent holds that " 'when different words are used in the same context, we assume that the words have different meanings' " State v. Nelson , , 439 (Minn. 2014) (quoting Dereje v. State , , 720 (Minn. 2013) ) (citing Transp.
- State of Minnesota v. Alvin Alexander Bonilla-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State of Minnesota v. Neil James Koskovich Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- Brooks v. State 897 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- Brooks v. State 897 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- Wesley Eugene Brooks v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- John Patrick Murphy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017