Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pierson, 368 N.W.2d 427.

29 citing documents.

Robert Martsching, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Judicial notice is appropriate fo r undisputed facts of common knowledge and “those for which neither expertise nor foundation is needed.” State v. Pierson , see also Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Pierson , , 434 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating that "[j]udicial notice of adjudicative facts is normally limited to facts of common knowledge not in dispute, and those for which neither expertise nor foundation is needed").
A18-1246 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(st ating that “[j]udicial notice of adjudicative facts is normally limited to facts of common knowledge not in dispute, and those for which neither expertise nor foundation is needed”).
State v. Norgaard 899 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Norgaard 899 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re: The Power of Attorney Granted by Virginia G. Taraldson dated August 23, 2007 to Kathleen P. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re: The Power of Attorney Granted by Virginia G. Taraldson dated August 23, 2007 to Kathleen P. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(discussing parallel 7 removal notice for criminal proceedings).
Pang Her Xiong v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Reliakor Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pang Her Xiong v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Reliakor Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Spence 742 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Spence 742 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Minnesota courts recognize that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes, and for sentencing purposes “unauthorized entry into residential dwellings [is] viewed more serious *206 ly than entry into commercial or industrial buildings.”
In Re the Welfare of P.W.F. 625 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Welfare of P.W.F. 625 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Anderson 463 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
*72 However, appellant’s to challenge the trial court’s use of serious permanent bodily harm as a basis for departure is misplaced.
Nachtsheim v. Wartnick 411 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nachtsheim v. Wartnick 411 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Butenhoff 392 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Butenhoff 392 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Excessive and gratuitous cruelty, (eye injury to elderly victim); invasion of the home when it is not an element of the offense, (Minn.Ct.App.
Marriage of Olson v. Olson 392 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Olson v. Olson 392 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(once a trial is commenced, a party cannot disqualify a judge).
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 390 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 390 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Dye 371 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Dye 371 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1985