Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Greer v. State, 836 N.W.2d 520.

61 citing documents.

Jason Lee Martin, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-86 (Minn. 2016); d 520, 523 n.4 (Minn. 2013)
Russell Vincent Winbush, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 520, 522 (Minn. 2013).
Leroy Roderick Paul, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Leroy Roderick Paul, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Ronald Lewis Greer v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Ronald Lewis Greer v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Greer v. State (Greer III), (affirming the denial of Greer’s first petition); Greer v. State (Greer IV), (consolidating, and affirming the denial of, Greer’s second and third petitions).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Postconviction relief is unwarranted when the allegations raised are “argumentative assertions without factual support.” 522 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“If the postconviction court concludes there are no material facts in dispute that preclude dismissal, and the state is entitled to dismissal of the petition as a matter of law, the court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.” (quotation omitted); (“When a petitioner alleges facts that, if true, are legally insufficient to entitle him to the requested relief, the postconviction court need not hold an evidentiary hearing.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When a petitioner alleges facts that, if true, are legally insufficient to entitle him to the requested relief, the postconviction court need not hold an evidentiary hearing.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“When a petitioner alleges facts that, if true, are legally insufficient to entitle him to the requested relief, the postconviction court need not hold an evidentiary hearing.” (quotation omitted).
Ronald Lewis Greer, Minn. 2022
Greer v. State (Greer III), (affirming denial of first petition); Greer v. State (Greer IV), (affirming denial of second and third petitions).
Syrrome James Phylip Moos, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Muhamud Ahmed Hirsi, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Andrew Bearden Williams, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Mary Kate Nguyen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Greer v. S tate, d 520, 522 (Minn. 2013).
Eddie Niles Hubbard, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Michael Allen Bauer, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(declining to abandon the objective standard established in Sanchez in favor of a subjective rule).
Brian Keith Hooper v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 2016
Brian Keith Hooper v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 2016
“[W]e review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error.” d 520, 522 (Minn. 2013) (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Kochevar Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Kochevar Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kim Thul Ouk v. State of Minnesota 884 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2016
Kim Thul Ouk v. State of Minnesota 884 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2016
Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2016
Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2016
d 520, 522 (Minn. 2013).
Thomas Lee Fairbanks v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2016
Thomas Lee Fairbanks v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2016
n.3 (Minn. 2013) (holding that an argument regarding the newly-discovered-evidence exception to the statute of limitations had been forfeited because the petitioner did not raise it in his brief).
Jesse Lee Paskey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jesse Lee Paskey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Arnold Fritzroy CoCo James, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Arnold Fritzroy CoCo James, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Semaj Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Semaj Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Lee Bolstad v. State of Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2016
Jason Lee Bolstad v. State of Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2016
Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560 875 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2016
Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560 875 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2016
Wilson Newongeby Kpahn v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wilson Newongeby Kpahn v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In doing so, we review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error, ”
Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 2015
Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 2015
Doris Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Doris Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerome Avriell Smith v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerome Avriell Smith v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Tha Phongvixay v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Tha Phongvixay v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Harold David Yaritz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015