Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hannuksela, 452 N.W.2d 668.

305 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[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.’” State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Min n. 1990).
Thomas A. Ruether, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
See State v. Hannuksela , , 673 n.7 (Minn. 1990) (applying a legal doctrine that the parties failed to argue in their briefs or at oral argument because appellate courts have a responsibility to decide cases in accordance with the law).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Hannuksela , d 668, 673 n.7 (Minn. 1990) (noting that it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with the law , regardless of whether the par ties choose to contest an issue).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.7 (Minn. 1990) (stating that “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law”).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990) (noting that it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with the law, regardless of whether counsel chooses to contest an issue).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re: Estate of Mae Anderson, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
App. P. 103.04, and are obliged “to decide cases in accordance with law,” State v. Hannuksela , d 668, 673 n.7 (Minn. 1990).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990) (noting that it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with the law, regardless of whether the parties choose to contest an issue ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.7 (Minn. 1990) (noting that it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with the law, regardless of whether counsel chooses to contest an issue).
Chester Vernon Jones, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.7 (Minn. 1990) (stating that “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law,” despite whether a party makes a particular argument).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Edson Celin Benitez Dominguez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.7 (Minn. 1990) (noting that it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with the law, regardless of whether the parties choose to contest an issue).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990) 3 Here, the meaning of the relevant statutes is “intertwined with the issue of whether the [s]tate proved beyond a reasonable doubt that [Waldron] violated the statute[s].”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Alt hough we are reviewing th is issue because we have a responsibility “to decide cases in accordance with law,” n.7 (Minn. 1990), we limit our review to appellant’s arguments.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.7 (Minn. 1990) (noting that it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with the law, regardles s of whether counsel chooses to contest an issue).
Peter Christiansen, a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian, Brad Christiansen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
failure to specify issues.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Hannuksela , n.7 (Minn. 1990) (“[I]t is the responsibility of appe llate courts to decide cases in accordance with law, and that responsibility is not to be diluted by counsel’s oversights .
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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 d iluted by counsel’s oversights, lack of research, failure to specify issues or to cite re levant authorities.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Cermak, d at 247; see Dillon, d at 391; n.7 (Minn. 1990) (“[I]t is the responsibility of appellat e 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 cite relevant authorities.” (quotation omitted)).
State v. Litzau 893 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Litzau 893 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
failure to specify issues.” , 673 n.7 (Minn.1990).
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
v. Anda, ( n.7 (Minn. 1990)).
Jessica Leah Weiss v. Alfred Aaron Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jessica Leah Weiss v. Alfred Aaron Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
App. P. 103.04 (appellate court may review any matter “as the interest of justice may require”); n.6 (Minn. 2013) (stating that mandatory language in child-support statute imposed an “independent obligation on the [district] court” to correctly apply the relevant statute, despite a party’s failure to seek that specific relief); 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 oversi
In re the Marriage of: Maria Suljic v. Ibrahim Suljic Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Maria Suljic v. Ibrahim Suljic Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[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).
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 884 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 884 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2016
that he was the victim of foul play and that appellant was involved.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
27, 1999); n.7 (Minn. 1990).
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-74 (Minn. 1990) (concluding that warrant was sufficiently particular because officers did not “definitely know all of the circumstances surrounding” the offense).
State of Minnesota v. Grant Leighton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Grant Leighton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (affirming use of Spreigl evidence as relevant of intent); (holding district court properly admitted evidence of Spreigl incidents to show intent); -79 (Minn. 1990) (holding no abuse of discretion where district court admitted Spreigl evidence as “particularly probative of the ‘knowledge of intent’”).
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Renaye Kroells Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Renaye Kroells Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Amanda Jean Lunzer v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Amanda Jean Lunzer v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.7 (Minn. 1990); (“[L]ack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by the parties or sua sponte by the court, and cannot be waived by the parties.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.