Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fuller, 374 N.W.2d 722.

136 citing documents.

State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Olson 609 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Olson 609 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Large 607 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 2000
State v. Large 607 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 2000
at 3084 ; (citing Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 672 , 102 S.Ct.
Johnson v. 1996 GMC Sierra, VIN: 1GTEK19R4TE551384 606 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Johnson v. 1996 GMC Sierra, VIN: 1GTEK19R4TE551384 606 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Risk 598 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1999
State v. Risk 598 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1999
State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
We have stated that a decision of the Supreme Court interpreting a provision of the United States Constitution that is identical to a provision of the Minnesota Constitution is “of inherently persuasive, although not necessarily compelling, force.”
Boutin v. LaFleur 591 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1999
Boutin v. LaFleur 591 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1999
-27 (Minn.1985) (stating that we will not “cavalierly construe our constitution more expansively than the United States Supreme Court has construed the federal constitution”).
State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
State v. Wicklund 576 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Wicklund 576 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Long 562 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1997
State v. Long 562 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1997
State v. Gwara, 311 Minn. 106, 108-09 , (citing the standard in terms of mistrial dictated by “manifest necessity” or “the ends of public justice”).
Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
See Minn. Const, art. I, § 7; Skeen, d at 313 ; -27 (Minn.1985).
In Re the Welfare of E.R.D. 551 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of E.R.D. 551 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
City of New Hope v. 1986 Mazda 626, License No. POC147 546 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
City of New Hope v. 1986 Mazda 626, License No. POC147 546 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
1892, 1898 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989); -27 (Minn.1985) (Minnesota’s double jeopardy clause interpreted consistently with federal constitution).
State v. Long 544 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Long 544 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
1055, 1062 , 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975)
State v. Hanson 543 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1996
State v. McKenzie 542 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1996
State v. McKenzie 542 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1996
(declining to decide whether Minnesota Constitution affords greater double jeopardy protection than federal constitution).
State v. Hanson 543 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1996
1892, 1897 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989); -27 (Minn.1985).
State v. Rosenfeld 540 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Watley 541 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Watley 541 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
23, 1990); (jeopardy attaches once jury is sworn).
State v. Rosenfeld 540 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-27 (Minn.1985) (declining to give state constitutional double jeopardy provision broader scope than its federal counterpart); State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59, 66 , (predecessor statute to Minn.Stat.
Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
State v. Harris 533 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1995
State v. Harris 533 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1995
2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982)
State v. Manning 532 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Manning 532 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Weatherspoon 514 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Ascher v. Commissioner of Public Safety 505 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Gray v. Commissioner of Public Safety 505 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Gray v. Commissioner of Public Safety 505 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Ascher v. Commissioner of Public Safety 505 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re the Welfare of E.D.J. 502 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1993