Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pero, 590 N.W.2d 319.

48 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Mark Scott Hendrickson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
P. 7.03 cmt.; (stating that “ comments [to the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure ] are recognized as providing guidance which courts may follow”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Joseph Bergeron, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Madison Equities, Inc. v. Robert L. Crockarell 889 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 2017
Madison Equities, Inc. v. Robert L. Crockarell 889 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 2017
Craig Matthew Hohenwald v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2016
Craig Matthew Hohenwald v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(determining whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to accept a plea agreement).
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 319, 326–27 (Minn. 1999) (affirming trial judge’s decision not to recuse after refusing to 15 accept guilty plea and noting that the accused retained the right to have a jury serve as fact-finder).
Frisch v. State 840 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Frisch v. State 840 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Although a rules advisory committee’s comment is not binding on the courts, such comments “ ‘are recognized as providing guidance which courts may follow.’ ” ().
Duncan v. Roy 830 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Duncan v. Roy 830 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Ramsey County v. Guardian D.F. ex rel. of K.D.F. 828 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Ramsey County v. Guardian D.F. ex rel. of K.D.F. 828 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
A writ of man *141 damus is considered “an extraordinary legal remedy.”
Houck v. EASTERN CARVER COUNTY SCHOOLS 787 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Houck v. EASTERN CARVER COUNTY SCHOOLS 787 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
While the commentary is not binding on this court, “the comments are recognized as providing guidance which courts may follow.”
State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
City of Wyoming v. Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings 735 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
City of Wyoming v. Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings 735 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy.”
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
3 Mandamus, however, is “an extraordinary legal remedy.”
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2006
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2006
I. “Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy.”
Northern States Power Company v. MINNESOTA METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 684 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2004
Northern States Power Company v. MINNESOTA METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 684 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2004
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, that is available only to compel a duty clearly required by law.
State v. Riley 667 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Riley 667 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bluhm 663 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bluhm 663 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(interpreting comment to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines as advisory and not controlling); (noting advisory comments to the Minnesota Rules of Court are not binding).
In Re Stuart 646 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2002
State v. Schleicher 646 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2002
State v. Schleicher 646 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2002
In Re Stuart 646 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2002
State *Page 524 v. Pero , , 323 (Minn. 1999).
Johnson v. State 641 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2002
Johnson v. State 641 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2002
495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); -24 (Minn.1999).
State v. Hoelzel 639 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2002
State v. Hoelzel 639 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2002
We have also explained that a writ of mandamus may issue to compel such a discretionary act only when failure to perform that act “was so arbitrary and capricious as to constitute a clear abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted).
State v. Lattimer 624 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Lattimer 624 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(stating “[sjentencing is within the province of the judiciary, not the executive branch”); Olson, d at 18 (stating once the legislature has defined the range of punishments for a particular offense, it cannot “condition the imposition of the sentence by the court upon the prior approval of t