Cited by

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

305 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But appellate courts have the 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).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
App. P. 103.04 (appellate court may review any matter “as the interest of justice may require”); 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 .
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellate courts have the 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)).
State of Minnesota v. A. Y. G., a/k/a A. Y. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. A. Y. G., a/k/a A. Y. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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).
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n.7 (Minn. 1990) (stating 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 relevant authorities”) (quotation omitted); Greenbush State Bank v. Stephe
Woodruff v. 2008 Mercedes 831 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Woodruff v. 2008 Mercedes 831 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
v. Anda, ( , 673 n. 7 (Minn.1990)) (other quotation omitted).
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
v. Anda, ( , 673 n. 7 (Minn.1990) (quotation omitted)).
State v. Rick 821 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
County of Dakota v. Blackwell 809 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
County of Dakota v. Blackwell 809 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
673 n. 7 (Minn.1990) (quotation omitted).
State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Han-nuksela, the court determined that protecting marital harmony “without erecting artificial ‘barriers to the ascertainment of truth’ ” is served through a narrow interpretation of the meaning of confidential interspousal “communication.” (quoting Montpetit, 275 Minn. at 402 , d at 586 ).
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
In State v. Hannuksela, we stated 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.” , 673 n. 7 (Minn.1990) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In Re Haslund 781 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2010
In re the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted to Haslund 781 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2010
In Re Haslund 781 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2010
But our obligation as an appellate court is "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.'" , 673 n. 7 (Minn. 1990) (citation omitted); (noting "authority to take any action `as the interest of justice may require'").
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
5 , 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 specify issues or to cite relevant authorities.” (quotation omitted)).
State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
Moreover, our responsibility *870 is "to decide cases in accordance with law.” , 673 n. 7 (Minn.1990).
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
This reflects the law’s sound “ ‘policy of protecting the marital relationship without erecting artificial barriers to the ascertainment of truth.’ ” Gia-nakos, d at 419 ().
Kunza v. St. Mary's Regional Health Center 747 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kunza v. St. Mary's Regional Health Center 747 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
P. 103.04 (appellate court may review any matter “as the interest of justice may require”); , 673 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, lack of research, failure to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities”) (quotation omitted); Greenbush State Bank v. Stephens, 463 N
First National Bank of the North v. Miller Schroeder Financial, Inc. 709 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
First National Bank of the North v. Miller Schroeder Financial, Inc. 709 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
673-74 n. 7 (Minn.1990).
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
Other-acts evidence may help to prove the element of intent, but the admission of such evidence under this exception requires an analysis of the kind of intent required and the extent to which it is a disputed issue in the case.
State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
1(a), to include “all written or spoken words, acts, and gestures which were intended by one spouse to convey a meaning or message to the other — such communication usually being denominated assertive conduct.”
Ruter v. State 695 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Ruter v. State 695 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See Brookfield Trade Ctr., (stating tax court’s statutory construction is a question of law subject to de novo review); , 673 n. 7 (Minn.1990) (stating “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); Greenbush State Bank v. Stephens
State v. Losh 694 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Losh 694 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
'‘[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.’ ” , 673 n. 7 (Minn.1990).
Roth v. Weir 690 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Roth v. Weir 690 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
673-74 n. 7 (Minn.1990) (addressing appellate court’s responsibility to decide cases in accordance with existing law); , 306 n. 1 (Minn.App.1990) (applying Hannuksela in a civil case), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
we acknowledged that at the time the warrant was sought the officers “did not definitely know all of the circumstances surrounding [the victim’s] disappearance although they were then in possession of sufficient facts to establish probable cause that he was the victim of foul play and that appellant
State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002