Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dumas, 587 N.W.2d 299.

25 citing documents.

Stewart Edward Underhill, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Underhill cites the supreme court’s and this court’s rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Brian Thomas Hughes, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Dumas , rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Feb.
David John Anderson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 878 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David John Anderson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 878 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Thole v. Commissioner of Public Safety 831 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Thole v. Commissioner of Public Safety 831 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Harrison v. Commissioner of Public Safety 781 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Harrison v. Commissioner of Public Safety 781 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Safety, (“Minnesota has a long tradition of assuring the right to counsel.”); (Minn.App.
State v. Schmidt 701 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Schmidt 701 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Appellant argues, however
State v. Bergh 679 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bergh 679 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In State v. Dumas, we considered the question of whether the Nordstrom prohibition extends to any prior uncounseled finding to enhance a latter charge or only to situations in which “the prior finding was obtained in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights.” review denied (Feb.
State v. Garcia 670 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Garcia 670 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(ex post facto law applies to events occurring before its enactment), review denied (Minn. 24 Feb.
Maietta v. Commissioner of Public Safety 663 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Maietta v. Commissioner of Public Safety 663 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“While the act of test refusal is itself a crime, it must be prosecuted in a separate action.” (emphasis in original).
State v. McLellan 655 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McLellan 655 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(holding that enhancement on basis of revocation because of uncounseled finding of violation of implied consent law does not violate due process), revieiu denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Nelson 608 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Nelson 608 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See, (Minnesota Supreme Court “decided over thirty years ago that a driver’s license revocation followed by criminal punishment does not violate any constitutional protections against double jeopardy”); (“implied consent license revocations are remedial in nature” and separate criminal charges for drunk driving do not violate double jeopardy principles), review denied (Minn. Feb.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by