Cited by

But 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).

This court must “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) (determining the supreme court could consider applying the severance doctrine to a search warrant even though neither party discussed its applicability in their briefs or oral arguments).

“However, 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).

See State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990) (requiring appellate courts “to decide cases in accordance with law” even when the parties do not raise an issue).

See, n.7 (Minn. 1990) (stating the responsibility of the appellate courts is not to be “diluted by counsel’s oversights, lack of research, failure to specify issues or cite relevant authorities.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

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

The state agrees that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction and that Nixon’s “conviction should be reversed.” Regardless, we must analyze the issue because “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law.” n.7 (Minn. 1990).

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (explaining that appellate courts must decide cases “in accordance with [the] law”).

See State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990) (stating that even if the parties agree on an issue, “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with the law”).

Although not raised by the parties, “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 specif y issues or to cite relevant authorities.” See State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted).

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

Nonetheless, we analyze the issue because “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law .” n.7 (Minn. 1990).

2 While Davenport frames his first challenge as a request to reverse his conviction, appellate courts have a responsibility “to decide cases in accordance with law.” n.7 (Minn. 1990 ) .

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (noting that appellate courts have a respon sibility “to decide cases in ac cordance with law, and that responsibility is not to be diluted” by a failu re to cite relevant authority (quotation omitted)).

See State v. Hannuksela , d 668, 673 n.7 (Minn. 1990) (holding that appellate courts have the responsibility to address cases based on the law) .

As mentioned above, the state’s motion to strike asserted that “Peterson controls the outcome in this case.” Even if a party concedes an issue, “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law.” State v. Hannukesla , n.7 (Minn. 1990); see also State v. Werner , 2 n.1 (Minn. App. 2007) (“While we generally accept a party’s concessions, we need not do so when the party has made a concession on a threshold issu e that presents a question of law.”); see, (Minn. Ap

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, and that responsibility is not to be diluted by counsel’s oversights, lack of research, and failure to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities”) (q

consistent with existing law whe n there is nothing ‘novel or questionable’ about the relevant law.” Greenbush State Bank v. Stephens , n.1 (Minn. App. 1990) (quoting State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990)), review denied (Minn. Feb.

While this court is not bound by a party’s concession, n.7 (Minn. 1990) (“[I]t is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law.

d 668, 673 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 specif y issues or to cite relevant authoritie s.” (quotation omitted)).

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

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

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

He relies on State v. Hannuksela, in which the supreme court said 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.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted).

However, this court has a responsibility “to decide cases in accordance with law , and that responsibility is not to be diluted by counsel’s oversights, lack of resea rch, failure to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities .” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (citation omitted).

Rather, we m ust “decide case s in accordance with [the] law.” n.7 (Minn. 1990).

Therefore, seizures made pursuant to the valid portions of the warrant are constitutional, and items so seized are not subject to suppression.”

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

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (applying a legal doctrine that the parties failed to argue in their briefs or at oral argument because appella te courts have a responsibility to decide cases in accordance with the law).

Although neither party advances this ar gument, appellate courts have a responsibility “to decide cases in accordance with law, and that responsibility is not to be diluted by counsel’s overs ights, lack of research, failur e to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities.” State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted).

But “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.’” State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990).

We must “decide cases in accordance with [the] law.” n.7 (Minn. 1990).

n.7 (Minn. 1990) (noting the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with the law, regardless of whether the parties contest an issue).

Whether Thesing’s citation, complaint, or the referenced portions of the development code actually define a crime or describe prohibited 1 n.7 (Minn. 1990) (noting that this court has a “responsibility .