Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hallmark, 927 N.W.2d 281.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court abuses its discretion if its ruling is “based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic an d the facts in the record.”
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A district court abuses its discretion when its de cision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is agai nst logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
- A21-0873 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When prosecutorial misconduct claims arise from a closing argument, courts “look to the closing argument as a whole, rath er than to selected phrases and remarks.” State v. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court abuses its discretion if its ruling is “based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court abuses its evidentiary 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. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R. R. B., Commissioner of Human Services, Legal … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
- Heather Mary Zigan, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. C. U., Child.
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
4 based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (M inn.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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.” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
13 v. Hallmark, (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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.” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
- Ronald Regino Altamirano, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
Butler & Allen P.A., Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[Appellate courts] review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is 8 based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A district court ab uses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is agai nst logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See S tate v. Hallmark , (setting forth procedure to be followed if a district court erroneously enters judgment of conviction on an offense and a lesser-included offense).
-
A20-0592 A20-0594
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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.” (quotation omitted).
-
Candy Michelle Ostlund, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court abuses its discretion when its de cision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quota tion omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic an d the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(a district court abuses its discretion when the decision in question is “based on an erroneous review of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record”).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district cour t abuses its discretion if its ruling 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. 2020
“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.” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-
St. Louis County Thissen, J. Took no part, Moore, J. State of Minnesota,
Minn. 2020
d 281, 302 (Minn. 2019); Bias, d at 486–87.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
D E C I S I O N “We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretio n.”
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020