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. McCoy, 682 N.W.2d 153.

278 citing documents.

  • State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    In an opinion interpreting a different aspect of section 634.20, the supreme court stated that the statute’s text means that “evidence of similar conduct in domestic abuse trials is relevant and admissible unless it should be excluded for the reasons listed.” (emphasis added).
  • State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    -61 (Minn.2004), the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that evidence of *784 similar conduct by the accused against the victim of domestic abuse that is offered under section 634.20 is not to be treated the same as Spreigl or other-acts evidence offered pursuant to rule 404(b).
  • State v. Lindsey 755 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Lindsey 755 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • In Re the Welfare of N.J.S. 753 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2008
  • In Re the Welfare of N.J.S. 753 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Meyer 749 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Meyer 749 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Sanders 743 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Sanders 743 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Westby v. Commissioner of Public Safety 742 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Westby v. Commissioner of Public Safety 742 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Wiltgen 737 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Wiltgen 737 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2007
    A court must give a plain reading to any statute it construes, and when the language of the statute is clear, the court must not engage in any further construction.” In re PERA Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Brittain, (-59 (Minn.2004)).
  • In Re Brittain 724 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 2006
  • In Re Brittain 724 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 2006
    -59 (Minn.2004) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
  • State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
    This due respect notwithstanding, “courts have the power to ‘determine what is judicial and what is legislative; and if it is a judicial function that the legislative act purports to exercise, [this court] must not hesitate to preserve what is essentially a judicial function.’ ” , 160 n. 7 (Minn.2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 423 , ).
  • State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
    Nonetheless, we are compelled to point out that, having considered and rejected a -61 (Minn.2004), 6 we have no reason to revisit *640 the subject.
  • State v. Bell 703 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Bell 703 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Hartmann 700 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2005