Cited by

We have observed that the description of items in a warrant must only be “as specific as the circumstances and the nature of the activity under investigation permit.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Santarelli, 778 F.2d 609, 614 (11th Cir. 1985)).

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (noting an appellate court’s obligation to decide cases according to law, even if the lawyers have not cited a relevant authority, and explaining that if such authority discussed a doctrine that was “either novel or questionable, it might be appropriate for the court to solicit additional briefs”

The Legislature 7 A variation of Nash’s argument is that the text of section 171.177, subdivision 1, requires that the police inform a driver that “refusal to submit to a blood test and urine test is a crime.” 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).

30 “Under the severance doctrine, the insufficient portions of the warrant are stricken and any evidence seized pursuant thereto is suppressed, but the remainder of the warrant is still valid.”

see also State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990) (noting that appellate courts have a duty to decide cases in accordance with the law).

n.2 (Minn. 2023); n.7 (Minn. 1990).

in either briefs or at oral argument,” the supreme court stated: “[I]t 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.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted).

Though neither party discussed this sentencing issue, “ it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law ” irrespective of the parties’ “oversights, lack of research, [or] failure to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted) ; -48 (Minn. 2007) (stating that a defendant cannot waive or forfeit review of an illegal sentence).

But we are not bound by counsel’s concession, for “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).

In addition, “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.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted).

Although Rebecca does not argue that section 518.18 applies, it is our responsibility “to decide cases in accordance with law.” n.7 (Minn. 1990); n.1 (Minn. 10 App. 1990) (applying Hannuksela in a civil case), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

Even so, “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.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted).

Harris, d at 600-01; n.7 (Minn. 1990) (citation omitted) (noting appellate courts have a responsibility “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)).

Neither Lovestrand nor the state raised this issue on appeal, but “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide the cases in accordance with law, and that responsibility is not to be diluted by counsel’s oversights.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted).

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (explaining that our responsibility to “decide cases in accordance with law” is not “diluted by counsel’s .

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (“[I]t 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.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

See generally Connexus Energy v. Comm ’r of Revenue, (noting that, the more specific statutory provision controls); n.7 (Minn. 1990) (concluding that this court has “the responsibility .

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (stating “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases according to law” despite oversights of counsel).

ts of a successful Brady claim); 2 Although Manila did not refer to Rule 9.03 in his brief or to the district court, we may consider its application because we have a responsibility “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) (quotation omitted).

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

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (“[I]t 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)).

er party sought review of an issue, “[i]n exceptional circumstances, especially in criminal cases, appellate courts, in the public interest, may, of their own motion, notice errors to which no exception has been taken, if the errors are obvious, or if they otherwise seriously affect the fitness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” (quotation omitted)); n.7 (Minn. 1990) (stating “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law, and that resp

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (emphasizing that the duty of appellate courts to decide 8 cases in accordance with law is not diminished by a party’s “failure to specify issues” (quotation omitted)).

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

In determining that issue, we apply well-established constitutional law governing traffic stops and reject Peterson’s assertion that if his license “was not canceled then there’s no basis for the stop.” As explained below, that is a misstatement of law, which does not bind this court.1 n.7 (Minn. 1990) (“[I]t is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law, 1 We therefore do not address Peterson’s five arguments regarding why the record is inadequate to prove tha

Despite the agreement of the parties, we are required to independently analyze the merits of Wilson’s challenge to his sentences because “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law.” n.7 (Minn. 1990).

13 doctrine is novel or questionable, and “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with the 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) (quotation o mitted) (considering the law of “severance” and “partial invalidity” in the Fourth Amendment context , despite neither party discussing their applicability, but concluding the doctrines were

I acknowledge that appellate courts have a responsibility “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 rel evant authorities.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

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

Though not raised by either party, we may address the issue sua sponte because “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law, and that 8 responsibility 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).

Because appellate courts have a responsibility to decide cases in accordance with law, n.7 (Minn. 1990), we asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing: 5 (a) What impact, if any, does Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), have on the parties’ arguments?

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

State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990).

6 research, failure to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted).

n.7 (Minn. 1990) ( recognizing that even when parties agree on appeal, appellate courts have the responsibility to “decide cases in accordance with the law” (quotation omitted)).

See State v. Hannuksela , -74 n.7 (Minn. 1990).