Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of Minnesota, 856 N.W.2d 98.

25 citing documents.

Paul Scott Seeman, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Under the second prong of this standard, “might” means something more than “an outside chance” but much less than “ would probably.” d 98, 104 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
Jennifer Lynn Baldwin, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“When applying the Larrison factors to determine whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court must assume the truth of the allegations in the petition.” see also Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.
Robert John Kaiser v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Overruled Robert John Kaiser v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Lance Arnold Kingbird, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
However, “Minnesota courts continue to apply the Larrison test in cases involving witness- recantation and false-testimony claims.” Campbell, d at 506 n.2; n.6 (Minn. 2014).
Justin Michael Fenney, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Ortega v. State , (Minn .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ortega v. State , (Minn .
Reed v. State 925 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2019
Reed v. State 925 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2019
Ortega v. State , , 104 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Campbell v. State 916 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2018
Campbell v. State 916 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2018
Ortega v. State , , 103 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
7 When assessing the merits of a claim base d on false or recanted testimony, the reviewing court “follow[s] the three-prong test set forth in Larrison v. United States , 24 F.2d 82, 87–88 (7th Cir. 1928).” 103 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997); (stating that a new trial based on false testimony may be granted only if the court is reasonably well satisfied the testimony was false).
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But when assessing the merits of a claim based on false or recanted testimony, the reviewing court “follow[s] the three-prong test set forth in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87–88 (7th Cir. 1928).”
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2016
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2016
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lynell Richard Ellison v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lynell Richard Ellison v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015