Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Miller, 849 N.W.2d 94.
-
Scott Solon Schaefer-Bonovsky, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The law-of-the-case doctrine “provides that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” d 94, 98 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotations omitted).
-
Aaron Olson, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“Law -of-the- case doctrine commonly applies to issues decided in earlier stages of the same case.” (quotation omitted)).
-
Douglas James Williams, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
argues that his “case was incontrovertibly proved at [the] hearing on January 24, 2022, and again at [the] hearing on June 20, 2023” and that it is “not currently subject to further re-hearing.” The law-of-the-case doctrine “provides that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” (emphasis omitted) (quotations omitted).
- A23-0163 Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
A23-0163 Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Law-of-the-case doctrine is limited to the same case and to only the issue previously decided and is not intended to be carried into other cases as precedent.” 11 (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(providing for citation of “pertinent and significant authorities”); see also State v. Miller , (stating that determinations in civil implied-consent proceedings “shall not give rise to an 4 DECISION Jones challenges the district court’s order denying her motion to suppress.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
[It] provides that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” d 94, 98 (Minn. 2014) (emphasis omitted) (quotations omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But “[c]riminal DWI proceedings and civil implied-consent proceedings are separate proceedings in separate cases.”
-
Dominique Salatheia Williams, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Miller , (stating that following plea acceptance and entry of conviction, public policy favors “the finality of judgments”).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
[It] provides that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” d 94, 98 (Minn. 2014).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
jeopardy attaches, at the latest, following a conviction.” (“Jeopardy attaches after the district court accepts a guilty plea and a djudicates the defendant guilty.”).
- Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson 897 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-
Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson
897 N.W.2d 828
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
tice that once an issue is considered and adjudicated, that issue should not be reexamined in that court or any lower court throughout the case.” (quotation *832 omitted)); (noting that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply if the issue has not been litigated, or the issue has not been decided at trial or on appeal); (“The [law-of-the-case] doctrine provides that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the sam
- State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
the-case doctrine prohibited the district court from imposing an upward durational departure on remand because the district court “overruled its prior legal conclusion that [Jerry’s] conduct was not significantly more serious than the conduct typically involved in the crimes.” The law-of-the-case doctrine “applies to issues decided in earlier stages of the same case.” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Scotty William Polchow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Scotty William Polchow
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
move to withdraw the plea under [r]ule 15.05 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, or seek withdrawal on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction.”
- State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Seelye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Seelye
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Law-of-the-case doctrine commonly applies to issues decided in earlier stages of the same case.” (citation omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Taylor Rod Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Taylor Rod
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
move to withdraw the plea under Rule 15.05 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, or seek withdrawal on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction.” (stating that “[a] defendant is free to simply appeal directly from a judgment of conviction and contend that the record made at the time the plea was entered is inadequate in one or more .
- State of Minnesota v. Robert James Tolbert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Tolbert
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A defendant who wishes to overturn a guilty plea may file a petition for postconviction relief under Minnesota Statutes section 590.01 (2012), move to withdraw the plea under Rule 15.05 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, or seek withdrawal on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction.”
- State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The doctrine provides that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” (emphasis omitted) (quotations omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Steven Robert Latham Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Steven Robert Latham Minn. Ct. App. 2014