Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Grunig, 660 N.W.2d 134.

108 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(allowing consideration of the state ’s alternative arguments on appeal).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Although the state concedes that it “did not advance this argument at trial, ”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
e court has held that a respondent may 8 raise a previously u nraised argument on appeal when the argument supported the district court’s decision and “there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.” State v. Grunig , d 134, 137 (Minn. 2003).
Joseph Z. Livingston, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
2012) (“[W]e may affirm a grant of summary judgment if it can be sustained on any grounds.”); (extending a supreme court rule to require the 4 The district court denied and dismissed Livingston’s pe tition.
Simon Duku Boateng, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
court erroneously failed to address a respondent’s previously unraised argument on appeal where the argument supported the district court’s decision and “there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.” State v. Grunig
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
s court erroneously refused to address a respondent’s previously unraised argument on appeal where the argument supported the district court’s decision and “there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2019
a stop was justified for several independent reasons, and the State creates a record to support each reason, an appellate court may affirm a decision when “there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.” see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
aff’d, (declining to reverse district court’s admissi on of statement even though reasoning was erroneous because statement was admissible on other grounds); (M inn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.” State v. Grunig , d 134, 137 (Minn. 2003).
A18-0659 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
ident-t o-arrest exception when denying the motion, “[a] respondent can raise alternative argum ents on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when t here are sufficient facts in t he record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”
State v. Poehler 921 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Poehler 921 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cambern v. Hubbling , 307 Minn. 168 , , 624 (1976) ; see also State v. Grunig , , 137 (Minn. 2003) ("A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief
Brandyn Brett Phillips, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
28, 2015) ; State v. Grunig , (holding court of appeals erred in refusing to consider alternative grounds for affirming district court’s decision) .
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Grunig , (“ A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the rel
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 134, 137 (Minn. 2003) (noting that a respondent may raise an alternative theory on appeal when there are sufficient facts in the record to consider the alternative theory, there is legal support for the argument, and the alternative theory would not expand the relief previously granted).
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
363 n.6 (Minn. 2007) (noting that the parties had not raised a constitutional claim before the district court or the court of appeals, and in general, this court does “not consider issues not raised to the courts below”); (“[WJaiver ...
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Justin Stephen Ries v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Justin Stephen Ries v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the rel
State of Minnesota v. Andrew John Wondrasek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew John Wondrasek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
29.04, subdivision 6, the supreme court has held that “[a] respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”
State of Minnesota v. Alan David Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alan David Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Leroy Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Leroy Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nonetheless, “the respondent on appeal in a criminal case may present to this court an alternative reason for affirming the district court, if the alternative reason is permitted by both the law and the factual record and would not expand the relief granted.” n.1 (Minn. App. 2015) ( (applying Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Perry Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Perry Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that a respondent “can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision”).
State of Minnesota v. David Ray Bennett 867 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ray Bennett 867 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
6; (applying Minn. R.Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Babafemi Adewale Odukale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Babafemi Adewale Odukale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 134, 136 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Charles Iepson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Charles Iepson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In State v. Grunig, the supreme court stated that “[a] respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.
State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
6; see, ("A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief p
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
But waiver “is an administrative rule dictating that appellate courts will not decide issues that were not raised in the [district] court.”
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
ld not expand the relief that *849 has been granted to the party.” We have interpreted this rule to mean that a respondent may raise new arguments on appeal if "there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.”
State v. Hughes 758 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2008
State v. Hughes 758 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2008
(involving a respondent who failed to raise an issue).
State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
“One purpose of this rule is to encourage the development of a factual basis for claims at the district court level.”
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
(stating waiver rule is administrative rule dictating that appellate courts will not decide issues that were not raised below).