DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65.

234 citing documents.

  • Lewis v. State 697 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    The rule stated in Givens was modified by a
  • State v. Zeimet 696 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Zeimet 696 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2005
    However, the imposition of a sentence in a particular case within those limits is a judicial function.” (internal citations omitted).
  • State v. Saue 688 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Saue 688 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    1997 Minn. Laws ch. 96, § 1
  • State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Anyanwu 681 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Anyanwu 681 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (holding a plea agreement by itself may not support a sentencing departure).
  • State v. Rourke 681 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Rourke 681 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • O'MEARA v. State 679 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2004
  • Hutchinson v. State 679 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 2004
  • O'MEARA v. State 679 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2004
    ( that there was no duty to retreat from one’s own home even if the aggressor is a co-resident, applied retroactively because Baird’s appeal was pending at the time Gloivacki was decided); (stating that our holding in that case — that a *339 plea agreement, standing alone, is not a sufficient basis to depart from the sentencing guidelines — applied to pending cases).
  • Hutchinson v. State 679 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 2004
    712 , 148 L.Ed.2d 629 (2001) (per curiam), which we expressly applied to pending and future cases, should instead apply from the effective date of an amendment to Minn. Stat. § 244.09 in 1997.
  • State v. Bluhm 676 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Bluhm 676 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 2004
    However, the imposition of a sentence in a particular case within those limits is a judicial function.” (internal citations omitted).
  • Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
  • Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
    Holmberg, d at 727 ; (providing reasons that prospective application of holding is appropriate in a criminal case).
  • State v. Kilgore 661 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Borrego 661 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Kilgore 661 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
  • State v. Borrego 661 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. By 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
  • State v. B.Y. 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
  • State v. B.Y. 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
  • State v. By 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Lewis 656 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Lewis 656 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Sanchez-Sanchez 654 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Sanchez-Sanchez 654 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    The parties disagree as to the applicability of the supreme court’s
  • Sanders v. State 649 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 2002
  • Sanders v. State 649 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 2002