Cited by

d 668, 673 n.7 (Minn. 1990).

Notwithstanding this issue having been raised for the first time at oral argument, we address it here, given our “responsibility … to decide cases in accordance with [the] law,” n.7 (Minn. 1990), and because “the interests of justice so require,” see Hegseth v. Am.

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (stating that 12 appellate courts “decide cases in accordance with law, and that responsibility is not to be diluted by counsel’s .

The problem “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law, and that responsibility is not to be diluted by counsel’s oversights.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“This requirement prohibits law enforcement from engaging in general or exploratory searches.” (noting that the prohibition against general warrants prevents “exploratory rummaging through a person’s 16 belongings”).

Search warrants that lack particularity are not “suppressed,” instead they are deemed “invalid.” –73 (Minn. 1990) (concluding that the search warrant was “invalid” because it lacked particularity); –13 (Minn. 2003) (concluding that the language of the warrant was sufficiently particular and therefore rejecting appellant’s claim that the search warrant was “invalid”

n.7 (Minn. 1990); see also Minn. R. Civ.

11; d 145, 161 (Minn. 2024) (considering an issue not raised on appeal); (same); n.7 (Minn. 1990) (addressing an issue not briefed or raised at oral argument, emphasizing “it is the responsibility of the appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law, and that responsibility is not to be diluted by counsel’s oversights, lack of research, failure to specify issues or to cite releva

24 We have the responsibility “to decide cases in accordance with law.” n.7 (Minn. 1990).

See State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990) (“[I]t is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law .

11; d 145, 15 161 (Minn. 2024); n.7 (Minn. 1990).

But we also have a duty “to decide cases in accordance with law, and that responsibility is not to be diluted by counsel’s oversights, lack of research, failure to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See Rygwall v. ACR Homes, Inc., d 416, 429 (Minn. 2024) ( n.7 (Minn. 1990), for the proposition that, “‘it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law’ even if the parties fail to raise an argument”).

But “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law.” –74 n.7 (Minn. 1990) (considering the applicability of a common-law doctrine “notwithstanding that the parties failed to raise or discuss the issue in their briefs or at oral argument”); see also Minn. R. Crim.

hould not have been denied on the ground” cited by the district court and “respectfully asks this Court to reverse the denial of [Walker’s] preliminary application on the specific, cited ground and remand to [the] district court.” But an appellate court is “not bound by the arguments made by the parties.” n.2 (Minn. 2023); n.7 (Minn. 1990) (“It is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law, and that responsibility is not to be diluted by counsel’s oversights, l

But as we have previously explained, “[w]e are not bound by the arguments made by the parties.” n.2 (Minn. 2023) ( n.7 (Minn. 1990)).

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (explaining that “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law, and that responsibility is not to be diluted by counsel’s oversights, lack of research, failure to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities” (quotation omitted)).

Although the parties did not focus on the district court’s second basis for excluding R.J.’s testimony, we must “decide cases in accordance with law” even when parties do not raise a particular issue, so long as that issue is not “novel or questionable.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (addressing an issue that neither party raised in its briefing or at oral argument); –56 (Minn. 2017) (affirming the court of appeals’ interpretation of a statute despite neither party raising the issue of ambiguity before the c

to decide cases in accordance with law.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted).

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (citation omitted) (holding that the duty of the appellate court is to decide cases according to the law).

Despite the state’s agreement, we are obliged “to ‘decide cases in accordance with [the] law’ even when the parties agree on an issue.” ( n.7 (Minn. 1990)), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

Finally, and although the issue was not raised by either party, we review Maxwell’s convictions because “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with the law.” n.7 (Minn. 1990).

We consider this issue on the merits because “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law.” n.7 (Minn. 1990).

The state agrees, but we have “an obligation to decide cases in accordance with [the] law even when the parties agree on an issue.” (alteration in original) ( n.7 (Minn. 1999)), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (explaining appellate courts have a responsibility “to decide cases in accordance with law”).

But “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law,” which “is not to be diluted by counsel’s oversights, lack of research, failure to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities.” -74 n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted) (considering the application of the law of severance or partial invalidity “notwithstanding that the parties failed to raise or discuss the issue in their briefs or at oral argument”); see also Minn. R. Civ.

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (explaining that appellate courts have an obligation to decide cases according to law).

Although the parties agree, we review the question because “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law.” n.7 (Minn. 1990).

“This requirement prohibits law enforcement from engaging in general or exploratory searches.” (noting that the prohibition against general warrants is intended to prevent “exploratory rummaging through a person’s belongings”).

failure to specify issues.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted).

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (observing that “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law” even if the parties fail to raise an argument).