Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wilson, 632 N.W.2d 225.

30 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See State v. Wilson (In re State), (applying de novo review when interpreting the UMDDA).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Joseph Letourneau 6 N.W.3d 73 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Joseph Letourneau 6 N.W.3d 73 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[W]hether good cause exists to grant additional time beyond the six- month period is within the judicial discretion of the district court.” State v. Wilson , see also State v. Miller , (recognizing that a good cause determination for extending the UMDDA time limit is a “subjective, factual question”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 225, 229 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Wilson , (holding that the six-month statutory time period under the UMDDA may be tolled when the defendant causes or creates a de lay in bringing the matter to trial, such as filing a motion to dismiss the complaint); -51 (Minn. App. 2004) (recogniz ing a tollin
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 225, 229 (Minn. 2001).
State v. Roy 917 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Roy 917 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See In re State v. Wilson , , 230 (Minn. 2001) ("We look for guidance from the UMDDA's counterpart, the [IAD]."); see also Resendiz v. State , , 864 (Minn. App. 2013) (stating that it is proper for this court to review case law from other jurisdictions that have passed the UMDDA), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Erik Demetrius White, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Erik Demetrius White, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating this standard with respect to the analogous Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act).
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This is also verified by the Committee of State Officials on Suggested State Legislation, wherein it is stated: ‘In Article IV the prosecutor initiates the proceeding.’” (footnote omitted)); see also State v. Wilson (In re State), (stating, when interpreting the UMDDA, that “[appellate courts] look to other states with laws similar to those of Minnesota to provide guidance” and “also look for guidance from the UMDDA’s counterpart, the Interstate Agreement on Detainers”).
State v. Brown 835 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Brown 835 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
3401, 3408-09 , 87 L.Ed.2d 516 (1985) (footnotes omitted); (stating that supreme court refers to LAD when interpreting UMDDA).
Resendiz v. State 832 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Resendiz v. State 832 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In State v. Wilson, the Minnesota Supreme Court highlighted the statute’s use of the word “shall” and determined that “[b]y use of the disjunctive or and the mandatory shall, the statute requires that the district court either set trial within six months or grant additional time for good cause shown.”
Ramsey County v. Guardian D.F. ex rel. of K.D.F. 828 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Ramsey County v. Guardian D.F. ex rel. of K.D.F. 828 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See Minn. Stat. §§ 586.01-586.12 (2012)
State v. VONBEHREN 777 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. VONBEHREN 777 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
6; *52 (in interpreting the UMDDA, “[w]e look to other states with laws similar to those of Minnesota to provide guidance”).
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
§ 586.02 (2004), and we have said that when a party has a right to appeal, a writ of mandamus is ordinarily not available, , 227 n. 4 (Minn.2001).
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2006
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2006
“The authority to issue a writ of mandamus is statutory.” see Minn.Stat.
State v. Kurz 685 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kurz 685 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2004