Cited by

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

136 citing documents.

In Re the Welfare of E.D.J. 502 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1993
in an opinion by Justice Peterson, we said: It is axiomatic that a state supreme court may interpret its own state constitution to offer greater protection of individual rights than does the federal constitution.
Rasmussen v. Glass 498 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasmussen v. Glass 498 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re the Welfare of E.D.J. 492 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re the Welfare of E.D.J. 492 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
The supreme court will not “cavalierly construe our constitution more expansively than the United States Supreme Court has construed the federal constitution.” -27 (Minn.1985).
State v. Johnson 483 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Johnson 483 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
“A person is in jeopardy and the constitutional provisions attach as soon as a jury is sworn.”
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1991
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1991
State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(religious liberties); (double jeopardy clause); , 281 n. 14 (Minn.1981) (equal protection); O’ (rights of criminally accused).
State v. Berge 464 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Berge 464 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
At the same time, we are cognizant of the axiom that “a state supreme court may interpret its own state constitution to offer greater protection of individual rights than does the federal constitution.”
State v. Hershberger 462 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1990
McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 460 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 460 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hershberger 462 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1990
See, (double jeopardy clause); , 281 n. 14 (Minn.1981) (equal protection); O’ (rights of criminally accused); State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 21-22 , -23 (1961) (due process); Davis v. Pierse, 7
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. French 460 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1990
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. French 460 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1990
: It is axiomatic that a state supreme court may interpret its own constitution to offer greater protection of individual rights than does the federal constitution.
State v. Lanam 459 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1990
State v. Whitehead 458 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Whitehead 458 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
see Nyflot, d at 523 (Yetka, J., dissenting) (urging expanded protection under the state constitution for drivers confronted with a demand to permit or refuse chemical testing).
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 455 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 455 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Christensen 439 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Christensen 439 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Schroepfer 416 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Schroepfer 416 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
retrial was not barred on double jeopardy grounds.
State v. Gray 413 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1987
State v. Gray 413 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1987
we said it best: It is axiomatic that a state supreme court-may interpret its own state constitution to offer greater protection of individual rights than does the federal constitution.
State v. Scholberg 412 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Scholberg 412 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See, -27 (Minn.1985) (reversing this court’s holding that the Minnesota Constitution’s double jeopardy clause precluded retrial when the United States Constitution would not); AFSCME Councils 6, 14, 65 & 96, , 570 n. 12 (Minn.1983) (reiterating that the prohibition against arbit
Collins v. State 385 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Collins v. State 385 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
31, 1986), the Minnesota Supreme Court remains the final authority on *55 the interpretation and enforcement of oui state constitution.
State v. Murphy 380 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1986
State v. Murphy 380 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1986