DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d 481.

48 citing documents.

  • Minn. 2022
    We have previously held that the distinction between Article I, Section 5 , and the Eighth Amendment is “not trivial.” State v. Mitchell , .
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. W. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
  • State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    “The refusal to give a requested jury instruction lies within the discretion of the district court and no error results if no abuse of discretion is shown.” d 481, 493 (Minn. 1998) (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
    We have held that this difference in wording is “not trivial” because the “ ‘United States Supreme Court has upheld punishments that, although they may be cruel, are not unusual.’ ” ().
  • State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
    This difference in wording is “not trivial” because the “United States Supreme Court has upheld punishments that, although they may be cruel, are not unusual.”
  • In re Guardianship of Durand 845 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • In re Guardianship of Durand 845 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    And “we routinely reject[ ] equal-protection claims when a party cannot establish that he or she is similarly situated to those whom they contend are being treated differently.” Schatz v. In *825 terfaith Care Ctr., ( (omission in original)); see, -93 (Minn.1998) (rejecting equal protection claim because 15-year-old defendant, who committed first-degree murder and was tried as an adult, was not similarly situated to 15-year-olds who commit first-degree murder but remained in the juvenile system)
  • State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
  • In re the Welfare of R.D.M. 825 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • In re the Welfare of R.D.M. 825 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
    in order “[t]o establish that [s]he has been denied equal protection of the laws, [Cox] must show that similarly situated persons have been treated differently.” (“The [E]qual [Protection [C]lause guarantees that similarly situated individuals receive equal treatment.”); (“The Equal Protection Clause requires that the state treat all similarly situated persons alike.”).
  • State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
  • State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
    4 (noting difference between the Minnesota Constitution and the Eighth Amendment).
  • State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
  • State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Brown 689 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Brown 689 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    2293, 2302 , 138 L.Ed.2d 834 (1997) (noting preserving life and protecting vulnerable people are valid public interests); State v. *800 Mitchell, (noting public safety is legitimate legislative interest).
  • State v. Garcia 683 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2004
  • Distinguished State v. Garcia 683 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2004
    in which we held that a 15-year-old charged with first-degree murder who was certified as an adult was not similarly situated to a 15-year-old who committed a murder and remained in the juvenile system.
  • State v. Pedersen 679 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Pedersen 679 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    VIII (prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment”); (recognizing the Minnesota Constitution provides a defendant with greater protection than the United States Constitution).
  • State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
    VIII (prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment”); (recognizing the Minnesota Constitution provides a defendant with greater protection than the U.S. Constitution).
  • Heidbreder v. Carton 645 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2002
  • Heidbreder v. Carton 645 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Landa 642 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Landa 642 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • In Re the Welfare of U.S. 612 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • In Re the Welfare of U.S. 612 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Pearson 609 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Pearson 609 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    the supreme court reiterated the statements it made in Krotzer and Foss : At times, this court has recognized exceptions when the [district court] does have inherent judicial power to act in the furtherance of justice, but this power is to be exercised only when there are special circumstances, such
  • St. Louis County v. S.D.S. 610 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • St. Louis County v. S.D.S. 610 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
    Cruel or unusual punishment analysis requires this court to focus on “the proportionality of the crime to the punishment.”
  • State v. Garcia 582 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Garcia 582 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1998