Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Brooks, 604 N.W.2d 345.

61 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Generally, “the purpose of bail is to ensure an accused’s appearance.”
Drake Snell v. Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, in his official capacity, ... 6 N.W.3d 458 Minn. 2024
Drake Snell v. Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, in his official capacity, ... 6 N.W.3d 458 Minn. 2024
See, e.g., Rud, d at 577–78 (disagreement over the abstract legal question of whether criminal defendants are permitted to call victims to testify at probable cause hearings for discovery purposes); (disagreement over the abstract legal question of whether the Minnesota Constitution permits cash only bail orders); Tschumy, d at 742 (disagreement over the abstract legal question of whether a guardian needs court approval to consent to the removal of life-sustaining treatment).
State of Minnesota v. David Powers Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. David Powers Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minn. 2023
ication of rules of construction.” Kernan v. Holm , see also Shefa, d at 825 (explaining that “[w]hen we determine that the language of a constitutional provision is unambiguous, the language is ‘effective as written and we do not apply any other rules of c onstruction’ ” ()); (explaining that we may consider “other indicia of intent” only when the language of the constitution is ambiguous).
Minnesota Deer Farmers Association, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
There are two discretionary exceptions to the general rule requiring dismissal of moot actions: first, “when an issue is capable of repetition, yet will evade judicial review,” State v. Brooks , second, when a case is “functionally justiciable” and of “statewide significance,”
Drake Snell, et. al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The second prong of the exception has traditionally been satisfied when the issues, by their character, are “too short to be fully litigated prior to [their] cessation or expiration.” Dean, d at 5 (quotation omitted) ; (“Most pretrial bail issues are, by definition, short-lived and failure to decide this issue could have a continuing adverse impact on those defendants who are unable to post cash only bail.”).
Deklin Darren Goeden, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Rather, our caselaw recognizes two exceptions to the jurisdictional rule requiring dismissal of a moot appeal: (1) “when an issue is capable of repetition, yet will evade judicial review,” State v. Brooks , and (2) when a case is “functionally justiciable” and of “statewide significance.”
Kristopher Lee Roybal, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, (stating that future litigants could be left without a remedy if the case were declared moot because “[m]ost pretrial bail issues are, by definition, short -lived”).
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Antwone Ford, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Brooks , d 345, 347 (Minn. 2000), as modified (Mar.
State of Minnesota, ex rel, Robert Young, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We will resolve the case if it is “functionally justiciable” and is an important public issue “of statewide significance that should be decided immediately.” -48 (Minn. 2000) (quotations omitted).
State v. Roy 910 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Roy 910 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Brooks , , 347 (Minn. 2000).
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
Ethan Dean v. City of Winona 868 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
Ethan Dean v. City of Winona 868 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
(citation omitted); (noting that future defendants might have “no remedy” if the case were not decided because “[mjost pretrial bail issues are, by definition, short-lived”).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Antwan Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord 845 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 2013
Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord 845 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 2013
State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
State v. Thomas 831 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Thomas 831 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 831 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2013
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 831 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2013
Schowalter v. State 822 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2012
Schowalter v. State 822 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2012
Carney v. State 792 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carney v. State 792 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“Issues of constitutional interpretation are questions of law and are reviewed by this court de novo.”
Houck v. EASTERN CARVER COUNTY SCHOOLS 787 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Houck v. EASTERN CARVER COUNTY SCHOOLS 787 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
at 821-22 (-48 (Minn.2000)).
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
Safety, (-48 (Minn.2000)).
State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
Jones v. Borchardt 759 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Jones v. Borchardt 759 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
But “the purpose of bail is to ensure an accused’s appearance and submission to the court’s judgment.”
State v. Martin 743 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2008
State v. Martin 743 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2008
We have said that “the general purpose of bail is to ensure an accused’s appearance and submission to the judgment of the court.”
In Re the Welfare of E.S.C. 731 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of E.S.C. 731 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2007