Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Baird, 654 N.W.2d 105.
- In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- Kmart Corp. v. County of Stearns 710 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 2006
- Kmart Corp. v. County of Stearns 710 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 2006
- Turnage v. State 708 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2006
- Turnage v. State 708 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2006
- State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
- State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
- State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
-
State v. Washington
693 N.W.2d 195
Minn. 2005
State v. Manley , , 283 (Minn. 2003); State v. Baird , , 113 (Minn. 2002); State v. Shoop , , 480 (Minn. 1989).
- In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- O'MEARA v. State 679 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2004
-
O'MEARA v. State
679 N.W.2d 334
Minn. 2004
( that there was no duty to retreat from one’s own home even if the aggressor is a co-resident, applied retroactively because Baird’s appeal was pending at the time Gloivacki was decided); (M
- State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Lewis 656 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2003
-
State v. Lewis
656 N.W.2d 535
Minn. 2003
We found this rationale even more compelling in criminal cases because to apply a new rule to the case in which it was announced but to not apply it to other cases that were then on direct appeal “would be to treat similarly situated criminal defendants differently.” (citing Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 327 , 107 S.Ct.