Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rosenbush, 931 N.W.2d 91.

18 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“We hold that the limited right to counsel under the Minnesota Constitution recognized in Friedman [v. Comm’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Isabella Anne Gendron Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Isabella Anne Gendron Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-97 (Minn. 2019) (explaining the legislative change that now requires blood and urine samples be obtained only pursuant to a search warrant); (holding that the warrant requirement is a substantive change to the law for the purpose of retroactive application).
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Alejondro Torrez Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Alejondro Torrez Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The district court also reasoned that, “challenges to the stop and challenges to the search warrant are all issues that should be decided by a judge prior to a trial[, s]o .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-95 (Minn. 2019) (reasoning that the supreme court has held that the right to counsel “applies at all critical stages of a criminal prosecution” (quotation omitted)); 146 (Minn. App. 2013) (citing first Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358 (1977); then State v. Hughes
A22-1093 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-95 (Minn. 2019) (stating that the right to counsel applies to all critical stages of a criminal prosecution); Maddox, d at 144 (same).
Marianna Kretsu Maki, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
does not apply when a driver is presented with the choice to submit —or not to submit —to a blood test pursuant to a search warrant.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(quotation omitted); Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
3(b) (“A defendant may not challenge restitution after the 30-day time period has passed.”); n.7 (Minn. 2019) (stating that arguments may not be raised for first time on appeal); (explaining that the statutory forfeiture rule applies to challenges to amount of restitution, not challenges to the court’s authority to order restitution).
Joseph Lawrence Weber, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Safety, -98 (Minn. 2019).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
D E C I S I O N To appeal a district court’s pretrial order, the state bears the burden of showing the order had “a critical impact on the S tate’s case.” n.2 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
an intoxicating substance.’” State v. Rosenbush , (quoting Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
After Atkins filed his brief
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(Minn. 2019), is relevant to the issue in his case .
Jensen v. Comm'r Safety 932 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jensen v. Comm'r Safety 932 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Rosenbush , , 99 (Minn. 2019).