Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Azure, 621 N.W.2d 721.

29 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mitchel Jerome Kasper Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Mitchel Jerome Kasper Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Catherine Marie Schaefer, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Such a writ prevents a judge from proceeding in a matter where he has been disqualified by a properly filed notice of removal” and “avoid[ s] the possibl[e] waste of time, money, and effort requi red of all parties by a procedure which might involve two trials and possibly two appeals in order to adjudicate the issue.” d 721, 725 n.3 (Minn. 2001) ( quotation omitted).
State v. Atwood 914 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Atwood 914 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Azure , , 723 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The issue of whether a statute is substantive or procedural “involves the construction of statutes and rules which is subject to de novo review.”
MicLeonard James Fisherman, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
MicLeonard James Fisherman, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-25 (Minn. 2001) (holding that a defendant waived his right to remove the assigned district court judge by failing to bring his motion for removal “in a timely manner”).
Keith Richard Rossberg v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 2016
Keith Richard Rossberg v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 2016
(holding that Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
5 We require that peremptory removal denials be challenged via the writ in order to “avoid a waste of time, resources, and effort by the parties and the court system.” Dahlin, d at 304; n.3 (Minn. 2001).
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
[is] not the appropriate way for appellant to obtain review of the denial of his motion to remove.” , 725 n. 3 (Minn.2001) (); (stating that to preserve the peremptory-removal issue, a party must seek a writ of prohibition from the court of appeals).
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
But we have previously stated that the right of peremptory removal “ ‘may be waived by failure to seasonably assert it.’ ” (quoting Jones v. Jones, 242 Minn. 251, 262 , ) (holding that appellant waived his right to seek peremptory removal by failing to file a notice of removal with the court administrator and by failing to bring a motion for removal in a timely manner).
Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
Hooper v. State 680 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2004
Hooper v. State 680 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2004
State v. Bauer 642 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Bauer 642 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Richardson 633 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Richardson 633 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Cheng 623 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2001
State v. Cheng 623 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2001