Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Busse, 644 N.W.2d 79.

65 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Todd Jeremy Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Todd Jeremy Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that an appellate court generally “will not decide issues that were not raised before the district court”).
Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
R e s p o n d e n t , Minn. 2021
In State v. Busse , we explained that “the offense of driving after cancellation as inimical to public safety implicates the necessarily greater concern regarding a person who has repeatedly (by statute, at least three times) violated Minnesota’s driving under the influence laws, and yet continues to drive.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Raymond Joseph Bellcourt, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Busse , , 82-88 (Minn. 2002) (concluding that state had 14 jurisdiction under Public Law 280 to prosecute White Earth member for offense of driving after cancellation as inimical to public safety); -31 (Minn. 1997) (concluding that state did not have jurisdiction under Public Law 2
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And Minnesota caselaw establishes that a proceeding under rule 26.01, subdivision 4, is meant to preserve pretrial issues for appeal ; it is not “a means for obtaining an appellate sufficiency of the evidence review.” -89 (Minn. 2002); , 292 (Minn. App. 2005) (stating that a subdivision 4 proceeding is “a concession that the state’s facts are accurate, with the primary purpose of permitting the defendant to appeal a pretrial ruling, while avoiding a trial for reasons of judicial economy”), r
State v. Leonard 923 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Leonard 923 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Busse , , 89 (Minn. 2002).
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
But' a “criminal penalty alone does not make a civil/regulatory law criminal/prohibitory.” 86 (Minn. 2002) (discussing the civil/regulatory and.
State of Minnesota v. Jack Warren Nomeland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jack Warren Nomeland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Steven Duane Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Duane Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tressa Lee Bissonette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tressa Lee Bissonette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION I. “Whether the state has jurisdiction to enforce its laws with respect to an Indian charged with an offense committed on [her] reservation is an issue that [appellate courts] review de novo without considering the decisions of the lower courts.”
State of Minnesota v. Dana Jerome Duncombe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dana Jerome Duncombe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lamont Bugg, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lamont Bugg, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We conclude that his plea was not invalidated because the record clearly indicates that appellant and his attorney were aware that the pretrial issue, i.e. the constitutionality of the test-refusal statute, would be dispositive of his case.4 (holding that, although 4 n.3 (Minn. 2002), as here, “it appear[ed] that the parties and the court thought they were following the correct procedure for preserving appellate review of pretrial issues” by having the defendant file a guilty plea.
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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
Constans v. Commissioner of Public Safety 835 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Constans v. Commissioner of Public Safety 835 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
for his assertion that “inimical to public safety” requires conduct involving impaired driving.
In re Disciplinary Action Against Nathanson 812 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2012
In re Disciplinary Action Against Nathanson 812 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2012
In Re the Civil Commitment of Johnson 782 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Civil Commitment of Johnson 782 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
State v. Roy 761 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Roy 761 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
R.G.C. v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 760 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
R.G.C. v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 760 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Losh 755 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2008
State v. Losh 755 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2008
Morgan v. 2000 Volkswagen, License No. 279, Vin 3VWRA29M2YM125643 754 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Morgan v. 2000 Volkswagen, License No. 279, Vin 3VWRA29M2YM125643 754 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In State v. Busse, the supreme court examined the statute that prohibits driving after cancellation as inimical to public safety and identified the broad conduct involved as “driving” and the narrow conduct as “driving after cancellation as inimical to public safety.” , 83 *593 (Minn.2002).
State v. Losh 739 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Losh 739 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007