Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hunn, 911 N.W.2d 816.

22 citing documents.

Cambria Company, LLC v. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. dba M&M Creative Laminates, Inc., ... Minn. 2024
Cambria Company, LLC v. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. dba M&M Creative Laminates, Inc., ... Minn. 2024
(holding that defendant forfeited issue because it was not raised in his petition for review).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Christina Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol 9 N.W.3d 368 Minn. 2024
Christina Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol 9 N.W.3d 368 Minn. 2024
–83 (Minn. 1988) (stating that a party may not obtain review on “the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory” and concluding that the court of appeals improperly considered a question not litigated in the district court); (declining to reach an issue not raised in appellant’s petition for review, and “not urged before, or considered by, the district court or the court of appeals”); see also New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767, 781 n.3 (1998) (passing over “the arguments
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
4 First, Johnson contends that “the premise on which Collins and Busch are based has been abrogated”
In re the Estate of: Joseph Rocco Figliuzzi, Minn. 2022
(holding that an issue not raised in the petition for review is forfeited).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But this right “is triggered only when the implied-consent advisory is read.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 816, 820 (Minn. 2018).
State v. Rosenbush 931 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2019
State v. Rosenbush 931 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2019
State v. Hunn , , 818 (Minn. 2018).
A18-1732 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Safety, d 828, 832 (Minn. 1991); (stating that Friedman applies only to implied-consent cases).
Kevin Robert Miller, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2, 3; n.2 (Minn. 2018) (“Today, only breath tests can be required under the implied-consent statute.”).
Brian Allen Platt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But “the limited right to counsel recognized by Friedman is triggered only when the implied-consent advisory is read.” State v. Hunn
State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Hunn , , 820 n.3 (Minn. 2018).
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
State v. Hunn , , 821 (Minn. 2018) (holding that the defendant forfeited his statutory issue because it was not raised in his petition for review).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
6 (quotation omitted), aff’d on other grounds
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018