Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Willis, 898 N.W.2d 642.

22 citing documents.

Hennepin County State of Minnesota v. Tremaine Michael Bucholz Thissen, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Hudson, … Minn. 2026
“The doctrine of stare decisis ‘directs us to adhere to our former decisions in order to promote the stability of the law and the integrity of the judicial process.’ ” (emphasis omitted) ( n.7 (Minn. 2017)).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee Vick Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee Vick Minn. Ct. App. 2025
the supreme court held that the Minnesota Rules of Evidence apply to restitution hearings, and subsequently, the Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committees on Evidence and Criminal Procedure amended Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Curtis AJ Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2025
This amendment followed the Minnesota Supreme Court’s in which the supreme court “held that the Rules of Evidence apply to criminal restitution hearings.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2025
n.5 (Minn. 2017) (reasoning that, because statutory right to restitution hearing did not exist when rule of evidence was promulgated, it was “unlikely that the drafters” of the rule “intended” a term within the rule to “encompass the then-nonexistent” hearing).
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Alexander Russell Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Minn. 2023
The doctrine of stare decisis “directs us to adhere to our former decisions in order to promote the stability of the law and the integrity of the judicial process.” n.7 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie Louise Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2023
However, and we may “look outside Minnesota when our own jurisprudence is undefined.” n.4 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Colten Chase Camacho Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“[T]he Rules of Evidence apply to restitution hearings.”).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Dante Moreno Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[I]f the defendant challenges the restitution 4 amount sought, the statute requires the court to conduct a restitution hearing.” n.8 (Minn. 2017).
Bonnie Berthiaume, et al., Robert Berthiaume, et al v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Imeriti, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. 2020
n.4 (Minn. 2017) (“We look outside Minnesota ‘when our own jurisprudence is undefined.’ ” (citation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Lamont Chestnut Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1101(c); , 648 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Jethro Togar Gboeah Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Berry Alan Willis Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 838 (Minn. App. 2016), rev’d
State of Minnesota v. TreJuan Dominic Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2019
n.8 (Minn. 2017) (recognizing that “if the defendant challenges the restitution amount sought, the statute requires the court to conduct a restitution hearing, and the Rules of Evidence apply to that hearing even if it is held during the same court appearance in which the imposition of a sentence length and ot
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Jordan Sargent Minn. Ct. App. 2019
.”); State v. Willis , (holding that the rules of evidence apply in restitution proceedings).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. I. Q., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Howard v. State 909 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Howard v. State 909 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Willis , , 648 n.8 (Minn. 2017) (citing Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd.
Berry Alan Willis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Willis , rev’d, d 642 (Minn. 2017).