DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wellman, 341 N.W.2d 561.

38 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State v. Stone 784 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Stone 784 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2010
    (citing the general rale that objections to evidence not raised below are forfeited on appeal).
  • Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    The number of separate attacks on a child victim justified a
  • State v. Williams 608 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Williams 608 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Munger 597 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Munger 597 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    ( (holding that presence of “severe aggravating circumstances” justified use of both durational departure and departure with respect to consecutive service)).
  • State v. Hanson 572 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Hanson 572 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1997
    (holding that in case of child abuse sentencing defendant to consecutive sentences constituted a departure).
  • Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
  • Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
    & II.F.06 comment; -66 (Minn.1983).
  • State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Rachuy 502 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Rachuy 502 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1993
    we said that under the logic of the so-called Evans doubling rule 1 generally “it would be a violation of the [Evans rule] to * * * use the aggravating circumstances in * * * a case to justify an additional departure, with respect to consecutive sentence, over and above the double departure as to dur
  • State v. Lomax 437 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Lomax 437 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1989
    -66 (Minn.1983), we held that the Evans doubling rule prevents the trial court from doing what the trial court did in this case unless it can be said that this is one of those rare cases —see, —where severe aggravating circumstances are present justifying a departu
  • State v. Leonard 400 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Leonard 400 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    at II.F.; -66 (Minn.1983).
  • State v. Mortland 395 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Edmison 398 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Edmison 398 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    (Amdahl, C.J., concurring).
  • State v. Mortland 395 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.F.
  • State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1985
    (1984); State v. (James) Cermak
  • State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1985
    Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary II.F.06 (1984); State v. (James) Cermak
  • State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984
    We applied Sentencing Guideline II.F.2 and Comment II.F.06
  • State v. Udstuen 345 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Udstuen 345 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1984
    Cases supporting the departure include:
  • State v. Dietz 344 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Gissendanner 343 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Dietz 344 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Gissendanner 343 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1984
    : [A] logical import of [the Evans case] is that generally the maximum sentence that a defendant should be given in a case in which departure is justified is two times the presumptive sentence duration and that it would be a violation of that principle to also use the aggravating circumstances in such