Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Murphy, 545 N.W.2d 909.

251 citing documents.

State v. Lewis 638 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Lingwall 637 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Lingwall 637 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Tze Thao 634 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Tze Thao 634 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(upward departure supported in part by the fact that the crime was committed in victims’ homes, resulting in “an invasion of privacy and security”); Behl, d at 714 (stating that crimes that occur in the victim’s zone of privacy, such as the victim’s bedroom, is an approved factor to consider
State v. Gilbert 634 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Gilbert 634 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Burks 631 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Burks 631 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Colvin 629 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Colvin 629 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Craven 628 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Craven 628 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Stewart 624 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2001
State v. Stewart 624 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2001
State v. Huston 616 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Huston 616 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Ali 613 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Ali 613 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Welfare of C.P.K. 615 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Welfare of C.P.K. 615 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
“In choosing between possible definitions of a statutory term, courts must accept the interpretation which is more logical and practical.” (citation omitted).
State v. Morris 609 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Morris 609 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
in which the supreme court affirmed a greater-than-double departure for multiple terroristic threats convictions.
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
(recognizing that in construing statute, court must presume legislature did not intend absurd or unreasonable result).
Guderian v. Olmsted County 595 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Guderian v. Olmsted County 595 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“It is well settled that courts may presume that the legislature does not intend an absurd result.” (citing Minn.Stat.
Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(stating statutory construction reviewed de novo).
State v. Spain 590 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1999
State v. Spain 590 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1999
State v. Lucas 589 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 1999
State v. Lucas 589 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 1999
State v. Holiday 585 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Holiday 585 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(courts must accept most logical and practical construction of statute).
In Re the Welfare of A.C.N. 583 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Welfare of A.C.N. 583 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sykes v. State 578 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sykes v. State 578 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(holding defendant’s actions constituted threat under terroristic threats statute where actions created “ ‘apprehension that its originator will act according to its tenor’ and commit a future act of physical violence”) (quoting Schweppe , 306 Minn, at 399, d at 613 ).
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Bragg 577 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Bragg 577 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Royster 574 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Royster 574 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Everest Development, Ltd. v. City of Roseville 566 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Everest Development, Ltd. v. City of Roseville 566 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997