Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pederson v. State, 649 N.W.2d 161.

46 citing documents.

Douglas Allan Treu, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A petitioner’s burden in a postconviction petition is to establish facts warranting relief “by 5 a fair preponderance of the evidence.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Renee Jean Tapper Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Renee Jean Tapper Minn. Ct. App. 2025
–64 (Minn. 2002) (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of: Amy Lynn Iverson v. Deven Allen Vanhouse Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of: Amy Lynn Iverson v. Deven Allen Vanhouse Minn. Ct. App. 2025
act to assure that parties have no reason to think their case is not being fairly judged.” -65 (Minn. 2002).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Matthew Sam Mitchell, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Matthew Sam Mitchell, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. J. F., II, and M. J. B., … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. J. F., II, and M. J. B., … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
T.A.A., d at 707 n.2 ().
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. M., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
She notes that our supreme court has cautioned that “‘[j]udges should avoi d the appearance of impropriety and should act to assure that par ties have no reason to think their case is not being fairly judged.’” State v. Dorsey , (-65 (Minn. 2002)).
A20-0368 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[T]he practice of the verbatim adoption of a party’s proposed findings and conclusions is hardly commendable.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A19-0850 A19-0851 A19-0852 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
In the past, when courts have disregarded our rulings, see State v. Lefthand , , 801-02 (Minn. 1992), or when the integrity of the fact-finding process has needed protection, see Pederson v. State , , 164-65 (Minn. 2002), we have exercised our supervisory powers, which include the power to reverse a case prophylactically, see State v. Salitros , , 820 (Minn. 1993).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The decision whether to grant a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence rests with the court and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse of discretion.”
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The decision whether to grant a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence rests with the court and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
To remain impartial, the judge “should avoid the appearance of impropriety and should act to assure that parties have no reason to think their case is not being fairly judged.” -65 (Minn.2002).
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
(noting the need for a judge to “avoid the appearance of impropriety” and to “act to assure that parties have no reason to think that their case is not being judged fairly”).
State v. Turnage 729 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 2007
State v. Turnage 729 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 2007
(“A petition for postconviction relief is a collateral attack on a judgment which carries a presumption of regularity and which, therefore, cannot be lightly set aside.”).
Amundson v. State 714 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Amundson v. State 714 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Children of T.A.A. 702 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2005
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
In Pederson v. State, we said, “[t]o maintain public trust and confidence in the judiciary, judges should avoid the appearance of impropriety and should act to assure that parties have no reason to think their case is not being fairly judged.” -65 (Minn.2002).
In Re the Children of T.A.A. 702 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2005
While we have declined to adopt a blanket prohibition on the practice, we take this opportunity to repeat that "[o]ur preference is 'for a court to independently develop its own findings.’ ” (citation omitted).
Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
Spann v. State 686 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Spann v. State 686 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“A petition for postconviction relief is a collateral attack on a judgment which carries a presumption of regularity and which, therefore, cannot be lightly set aside.”
James v. State 674 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
James v. State 674 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
A postconviction relief petition collaterally attacks the district court’s decision — a decision that “carries a presumption of regularity and which, therefore, cannot be lightly set aside.”
State v. Sime 669 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Sime 669 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by