Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Guzman, 892 N.W.2d 801.

162 citing documents.

A16-1527 Minn. 2018
Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
State v. Guzman , , 809 (Minn. 2017) (citing State v. Lee , , 493 (Minn. 2005) ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Guzman , (explaining that “[t]he opening-the-door doctrine is essentially one of fairness and common sense, based on the proposition that one party should not have an unfair advantage .
State v. Taylor 910 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Taylor 910 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Guzman , , 812 (Minn. 2017).
Pondview Townhomes, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A di strict 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.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A district 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.” State v. Guzman
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
creat[ing] in the [state] a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” State v. Guzman , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See 4 -14 (Minn. 2017) (holding that plain-error analysis applies when appellant’s arguments on appeal regarding admission of evidence were not apparent from the context of the objection actua lly made at trial).
State v. Stempfley 900 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2017
A15-1255 Minn. 2017
(“A district 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.” (citing Riley v. State , )).