Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Trei, 624 N.W.2d 595.

64 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Dismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement.” petition for rev. dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Dismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement.” petition for rev. dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Probable cause exists where the facts would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to hold an honest and strong suspicion that the person under consideration is guilty of a crime.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
8 “Dismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement.” rev. dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rev. dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001) .
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“Dismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement.”).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Scott Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Scott Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
petition for rev. dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. David Wokeph Natee Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. David Wokeph Natee Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rev. dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“Dismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement.”).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001) .
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
2(2)(b), provides that, when appealing a pretrial order, a prosecutor must file a statement of the case “explaining how the district court’s alleged error, unless reversed, will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” (“When the state appeals a pretrial order under Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Trei , rev. dismissed (Minn. 4 June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
rev. dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
A19-1113 A19-1115 A19-1116 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
As a preliminary matter, in an appeal by the state of a pretrial order, this court will reverse only if the state “demonstrates clearly and equivocally that the district court erred in its judgment and, unless reversed , the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Trei , review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[A] reviewing court will reverse only if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the district court erred in its judgment and, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.”), review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001); see also Minn. R. Crim
State v. Gosewisch 921 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gosewisch 921 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Trei , , 597 (Minn. App. 2001), review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
A18-1143 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Here, the state met that threshold showing because “[d]ismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement.” review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Dismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement.” review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Trei , , 597 (Minn. App. 2001), review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Trei , , 598 (Minn. App. 2001) (quoting Paradise v. City of Minneapolis , , 155 (Minn. 1980) ), review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Underdahl , (holding that the critical-impact requirement was satisfied when the pretrial orders suppressed the breath test and required dismissal of certain charges); (holding that “[d]ismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement”), review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Dismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement.” State v. Trei , review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Trei , review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
For this argument, -99 (Minn. App. 2001) (reversing dismissal of charge of assaulting police officer against individual who moved towards officer “with knives in hand while uttering words to the effect that he wished to engage [the officer] in combat,” but stoppe d when the officer drew his gun).
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Dismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement.” State v. Trei , , review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. David Israel Buenano Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. David Israel Buenano Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Dismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement.” review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Kim Marie Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kim Marie Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When the state appeals a pretrial order, we will reverse “only if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the district court erred in its judgment and, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
5 person under consideration is guilty of a crime.” review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Carl Thoensen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Carl Thoensen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Dismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement.”
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Dismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement.” review dismissed (Minn. June 27, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION I. When the state appeals a pretrial order, “a reviewing court will reverse only if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the district court erred in its judgment and, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. James Nils Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Nils Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Dismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement.” review dismissed (Minn. June 22, 2001).