DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kiminski, 474 N.W.2d 385.

33 citing documents.

  • State v. Defatte 921 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Defatte 921 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    d at 534 ; see also State v. Kiminski , , 389 (Minn. App. 1991) (concluding that the state's appeal of a dismissal was proper despite the possibility of an alternative prosecution for a less serious charge), review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Here, because the district court’s dismissal of the charge was based upon its interpretation of the controlling statute and statutory construction is a question of law, review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (“[The state has] discretion to choose the more serious or the less serious [charge], or both, when the facts to them appear to involve more than one criminal statute.”).
  • State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • State v. Moen 752 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Moen 752 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    (holding that the possibility of an alternative prosecution did not preclude the state’s ability to appeal the dismissed charge it would prefer to prosecute), review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • State v. Palmer 749 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Palmer 749 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    State v. Hart, 723 * (noting that district court’s dismissal order was not appealable because accompanying memorandum explained that dismissal was “in the interests of justice”); (holding that critical impact could not be premised on anticipated future rulings), review denied (Minn. July 27, 1994); -89 (Minn.App.1991) (relying on language of district court’s memorandum to conclude that probable-cause dismissal was based on statutory construction and was therefore appealable), review denied (Minn
  • State v. Gabbert 693 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Gabbert 693 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    -89 (Minn.App.1991), review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • State v. Tice 686 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Tice 686 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • Kyute v. Auslund 668 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Kyute v. Auslund 668 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • State v. Koenig 649 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Koenig 649 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • State v. Thoma 569 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Thoma 569 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    (dismissal of complaint based solely on question of law is appealable), review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • State v. Duffy 559 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Duffy 559 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    1, as allowing appeals from pretrial orders where the “complaint is dismissed solely on a question of law.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • State, City of Crystal v. Kivi 554 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State, City of Crystal v. Kivi 554 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    -89 (Minn.App.1991), review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • State v. Lores 512 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Lores 512 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    -89 (Minn.App.1991), pet.
  • State v. Niska 499 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Niska 499 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Moe 498 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Moe 498 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1993