DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Middleton Ex Rel. Middleton v. Northwest Airlines, 617 N.W.2d 561.

31 citing documents.

  • Abdiel Josadac Aguilar-Pineda, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    “A petition for postconviction relief is a collateral attack on a conviction that carries a presumption of regularity.”
  • Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
    ANALYSIS “A petition for postconviction relief is a collateral attack on a conviction that carries a presumption of regularity.”
  • Abdirahman Dayib Ahmed, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    See State v. Mosley , (explaining that if one plai n-error prong is dispositive we need not consider other prongs) ; see also Hummel v. State , (affirming district court’ s postconviction decision on alternative grounds).
  • Antonio Deandre Johnson, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • Antonio Xavier Daniels, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    See Hummel v. State , (affirming the district court’s postconviction decision on alternative grounds).
  • Neal Curtis Zumberge, Minn. 2019
    e issues, and may choose to present only the most meritorious claims on appeal.” (explaining also that “[a]ppellate counsel does not act unreasonably by 12 not raising issues that he or she could have legitimately concluded would not prevail”); Leake , d at 536
  • Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
    Hummel v. State , , 566 (Minn. 2000).
  • Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
    3 (2016) ("Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the burden of proof of the facts alleged in the petition shall be upon the petitioner...."); see also Tscheu v. State , , 403 (Minn. 2013) (noting that the defendant bears the burden of proof to show an entitlement to relief); Hummel v. State , , 564 (Minn. 2000) (same).
  • A16-1527 Minn. 2018
    .”); (noting that the defendant bears the burden of proof to show an entitlement to relief ); Hummel v. State , (same).
  • Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    d 561, 566 (Minn. 2000) (“[A]ppellate counsel has no duty to raise all possible issues on appeal, but may exclude those that detract from more meritorious issues.”).
  • Brian Keith Hooper v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 2016
    “A petition for postconviction relief is a collateral attack on a conviction that carries a presumption of regularity.”
  • Thomas Lee Fairbanks v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2016
    “A petition for postconviction relief is a collateral attack on a conviction that carries a presumption of regularity.”
  • Jason Lee Bolstad v. State of Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2016
    “A petition for postconviction relief is a collateral attack on a conviction that carries a presumption of regularity.”
  • Scherf v. State 788 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2010
    “A petition for postconvietion relief is a collateral attack on a conviction that carries a presumption of regularity.”
  • State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
  • Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    the petitioner complained that his privately retained appellate counsel, who had also been trial counsel, failed to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim on direct appeal.
  • Longoria v. State 749 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Bruestle v. State 719 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2006
    “A petition for postconviction relief is a collateral attack on a conviction that carries a presumption of regularity.”
  • Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
  • Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
  • Jihad v. State 714 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (holding postconviction petition is collateral attack on the conviction); Minn.Stat.
  • Ledden v. State 686 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Henderson v. State 675 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2004
  • Greer v. State 673 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2004
  • Meemken v. State 662 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    ANALYSIS “A petition for postconviction relief is a collateral attack on a conviction that carries a presumption of regularity.” (citing State ex rel.
  • Pederson v. State 649 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 2002
  • King v. State 649 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2002
  • Shoen v. State 648 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2002
  • Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
  • Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001