Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Walser Auto Sales, Inc. v. City of Richfield, 644 N.W.2d 425.

32 citing documents.

William Demont White, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Salvador Niola Agudo Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Svoboda, d at 775; (stating that proponent of evidence had not established relevance “either by extrinsic evidence or by offer of proof”); (noting that “[a]n offer of proof provides an evidentiary basis” for a district court’s evidentiary ruling); Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
2, courts consider four factors w hen considering pretrial motions to join and motions to sever: “(1) the nature of the offense charged; (2) the impact on the victim; (3) the potential prejudice to the defendant; and (4) the interests of justice.” (holding that standard of Minn. R. Crim P. 17.03, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lawrence Benson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The purpose of an offer of proof is to provide ‘the court with an opportunity to ascertain the admissibility of the proffered evidence’ and to provide ‘a record for a reviewing court to determine whether the lower court ruling was correct.’” ( (M inn.
City of Shorewood v. Guy Gerald Sanschagrin, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that appositive phrases set off by commas should be construed to modify only the immediately preceding noun, pronoun, or clause, unless it is clear that it was intended to apply to subsequent matter.” Walser Auto Sales, -97 (Minn. App. 2001) (quotation omitted), aff’d mem.
State of Minnesota v. Cassandra Lynn Sheimo Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Paul Matthew Ashfeld v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Levell Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Welfare of: R. R., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Kathleen Lynn Alvar Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Where, as here, a district court excludes evidence, the abuse of discr etion has to be shown on a record that is fairly limited in scope: “an offer of proof provides the [district] court with an opportunity to ascertain the admissibility of the proffered evidence and provides a record for a reviewing court to determine whether the lower court ruli ng was correct.” (“When the district court excludes evidence, an of fer of proof provides the evidentiary basis for the court’s decision.”).
State v. Hill 918 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Santiago v. State , , 449 (Minn. 2002) (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. Devon Larry Green Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Berdell Green Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Kauser Mohamoud Yusuf v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Otis Rodney Elder, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“We use the standard of review for direct appeals when a defendant first files a direct appeal, subsequently moves for an order staying the direct appeal in order to proceed with a postconviction hearing, and the court of appeals then dismisses the direct appeal.”).
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that joinder and severance of defendants involve procedural issues, rather than substantive rights).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph McManus Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(applying standard of review for direct appeals when defendant requested a stay and direct appeal was dismissed).
State v. PAK 787 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The purpose of an offer of proof is to provide “the court with an opportunity to ascertain the admissibility of the proffered evidence” and to provide “a record for a reviewing court to determine whether the lower court ruling was correct.”
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
P. 31.01 (stating that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded”)
Becker v. Mayo Foundation 737 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2007
“In practice, Minnesota courts permit an attorney to make a proffer by informing the court of a witness’s expected testimony.”
State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
State v. Maurstad 706 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
Reiling v. City of Eagan 664 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Reiling v. City of Eagan 664 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Walser Auto Sales, aff 'd
Thul v. State 657 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003