DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Munnell, 344 N.W.2d 883.

24 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    And “negligently” is a legal term of art that means “fail[ing] to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon, (defining negligence and explaining that the Minnesota Supreme Court has “upheld the constitutionality of using an ordinary negligence standard in criminal statutes”).
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. R. Z. R., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    carelessly operated his 7 (defining negligence in the context of negligently driving under the influence as “the doing of something which an ordinarily prudent person would not do or the failure to do something [that] an ordinarily prudent person would do under like or similar circumstances” (quotation omitted)); CRI
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
  • Sharon Marie O’Boyle, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Negligence means “the doing of something which an ordinarily prudent person would not do or the failure to do something which an ordinarily prudent person would do under like or similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted) ; see also 10 Minnesota Practice , CRIMJIG 13.98 (2016) (defining “negligence” for crime of negligent storage of firearms) .
  • State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    16, 2004); (stating that “the Minnesota Supreme Court [has] upheld the constitutionality of using an ordinary negligence standard in criminal statutes”).
  • State v. Nelson 806 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Nelson 806 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    N.W.2d at 738 (ruling that the combined acts of a negligent driver entering an intersection on a red light and a pedestrian running in front of a bus while a “Don’t walk” signal was displayed, followed a natural sequence that resulted in the pedestrian’s death, which “was a foreseeable consequence of each act of negligence” that did not excuse the driver’s negligence); (ruling that contributory negligence of victim was not a defense to a charge of criminal vehicular operation in an accident invo
  • State v. Hofer 614 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Hofer 614 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    ity); State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 519-20 , (finding that even if victim’s husband was negligent in.creating spark in gas-filled room, it did not relieve defendant from liability); (finding that even if victim had been driving negligently, it would not have relieved defendant from liability); -88 (Minn.App.1984) (holding that victim’s intoxication and the fact that he was lying in the middle of the road did not relieve driver of criminal liability).
  • State v. Jaworsky 505 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Jaworsky 505 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    (public safety promoted by criminal prosecution).
  • State v. Jennings 487 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Jennings 487 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    for rev. denied (Minn. May 30, 1990)
  • In Re the Welfare of J.G.B. 473 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • In Re the Welfare of J.G.B. 473 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    Negligence means “the doing of something which an ordinarily prudent person would not do or the failure to do something which an ordinarily prudent person would do under like or similar circumstances.” (quoting Erickson v. Van Web Equip.
  • State v. VanWert 438 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. VanWert 438 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    “Negligence is ‘the doing of something which an ordinarily prudent person would not do * * * under like or similar circumstances.’ ” (quoting Erickson v. Van Web Equipment Co., 270 Minn. 42, 49 , ).
  • Stoffel v. Commissioner of Public Safety 393 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Stoffel v. Commissioner of Public Safety 393 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Balder v. Haley 390 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Balder v. Haley 390 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    -8 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); Hart v. State, 75 Wis.2d 371