DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162.

475 citing documents.

  • Staunton v. State 842 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 2014
  • Orozco v. State 841 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Orozco v. State 841 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
  • Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
  • Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
    There is an abuse of discretion when the postconviction court’s “decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
  • Townsend v. State 834 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2013
  • Townsend v. State 834 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2013
    (articulating the same standard of review for the denial of a petition for postconviction relief).
  • Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
  • Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
  • 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.’ ” ().
  • Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
  • Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
    The scope of our review of factual matters is to determine whether there was “sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.” Dobbins, d at 725 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
  • Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
    See, -70 (Minn.2012) (evaluating the other evidence in the case); -67 (Minn.1986) (assessing the other evidence presented at trial and the declarant’s relationship with the appellant); (examining the overall credibility of the decl
  • Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
  • Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
  • Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
  • Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
    9 *520 where we upheld the denial of an eviden-tiary hearing because the hearsay declar-ant was dead.