Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rud, 359 N.W.2d 573.

112 citing documents.

State v. Dunson 770 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Dunson 770 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
The State argues that the amount of process due at a
Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 769 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 769 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“A case is functionally justiciable if the record contains the raw material (including effective presentation of both sides of the issues raised) traditionally associated with effective judicial decisionmaking.”
Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 755 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 755 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Our supreme court has cited the Weinstein elements with approval and stated, in addition, that the court will not deem a case moot if the case is “functionally justiciable” and presents an important public issue “of statewide significance that should be decided immediately.” -22 (Minn.2005)
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel 748 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel 748 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Midway Massage, Inc. 695 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Midway Massage, Inc. 695 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
But “[t]he mootness doctrine is a flexible discretionary doctrine, not a mechanical rule that is invoked automatically whenever the underlying dispute between the particular parties is settled or otherwise resolved.”
Isaacs v. American Iron & Steel Co. 690 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Isaacs v. American Iron & Steel Co. 690 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schwan 687 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schwan 687 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Additionally, an issue will not be considered moot if it is related to “important public issues of statewide significance that should be decided immediately.”
Education Minnesota-Greenway, Local 1330 v. Independent School District No. 316 673 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Education Minnesota-Greenway, Local 1330 v. Independent School District No. 316 673 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
The supreme court has stated that the mootness doctrine is a “flexible discre *849 tionary doctrine, not a mechanical rule that is invoked automatically.”
State v. Koenig 666 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2003
State v. Ortiz 626 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Ortiz 626 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Brooks 604 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2000
State v. Brooks 604 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2000
While this exception to the mootness doctrine is flexible, we have stated that in order for us to decide an issue, it must be “functionally justiciable.”
State v. Arens 586 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1998
State v. Arens 586 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1998
We have held that “the mootness doctrine is a flexible discretionary doctrine, not a mechanical rule that is invoked automatically whenever the underlying dispute between particular parties is settled or otherwise resolved,”
In Re the Welfare of A.C.N. 583 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Welfare of A.C.N. 583 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
After examining the entire record, the district court can deny the motion to dismiss if “satisfied that the facts appearing in the record, including reliable hearsay, would preclude the granting of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal if proved at trial.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 459 , modified, (emphasizing that the state need not produce witnesses at probable cause hearing to prevent dismissal).
State v. Bragg 577 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Bragg 577 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Everest Development, Ltd. v. City of Roseville 566 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Everest Development, Ltd. v. City of Roseville 566 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Application of Minnegasco 565 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1997
Application of Minnegasco 565 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1997
of Teaching, the general rule is that when, pending appeal, an event occurs that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal should be dismissed as moot.
Teaching License of Falgren v. State, Board of Teaching 545 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1996
Teaching License of Falgren v. State, Board of Teaching 545 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1996
State v. Hegstrom 543 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Hegstrom 543 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Dunagan 521 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1994
State v. Dunagan 521 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1994
Under State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , “the production of exonerating evidence by a defendant at the probable cause hearing does not justify the dismissal of the charges if the record establishes that the prosecutor possesses substantial evidence that will be admissible at trial and that would justify denial of a motion for a directed verdict
State v. Niska 499 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Niska 499 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(charges need not be dismissed for lack of probable cause when state has substantial evidence admissible at trial that would justify denial of motion for directed verdict of acquittal).
State v. Doughty 472 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1991
State v. Kraushaar 470 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1991
State v. Kraushaar 470 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1991
In criminal prosecutions in Minnesota, there is no such thing as a “discovery deposition.” , 578 n. 1 (Minn.1984).
State v. Jordan 426 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Jordan 426 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1988

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by