Cited by

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

305 citing documents.

State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
In Re the Welfare of the Children of Coats 633 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 2001
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 622 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 622 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
673-74 n. 7 (Minn.1990) (stating that appellate courts can address issues not raised on appeal when reasoning relied upon by court is neither novel nor questionable).
Jerry Mathison Construction, Inc. v. Binsfield 615 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Jerry Mathison Construction, Inc. v. Binsfield 615 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
673 n. 7 (Minn.1990) (applying legal theory not briefed or presented at oral argument); Carousel Automobiles, , 476 n. -2- (Minn.App.1994) (not necessary to reverse decision simply because trial court did not rely on strongest reasons), aff 'd
Gun Lake Ass'n v. County of Aitkin 612 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Gun Lake Ass'n v. County of Aitkin 612 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
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’ ”) (citation omitted); Greenbush State Bank v. Stephens, 463 N
State v. Edwards 589 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Edwards 589 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
673-74 n. 7 (Minn.1990).
State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
1975, 1979 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); , 673 n. 7 (Minn.1990); see G.M., d at 694-95 (affirming a search on grounds not argued by the parties).
State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
§ 645.08(1) (1996) (requiring construction of statutory words and phrases according to common usage); , 677 n. 12 (Minn.1990) (attributing ordinary meaning to statutory terms).
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 560 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1997
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 560 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1997
-74, n. 7 (Minn.1990) (applying “severance doctrine” to uphold search even though neither side presented the court with such an argument).
In Re the Welfare of J.A.J. 545 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Zanter 535 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1995
State v. Zanter 535 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1995
The trial court held that probable cause existed for only that part of the third warrant that authorized the police to search for evidence of blood and to seize from the Zan-ter home “samples of carpet, carpet pad, woodwork, wallboard and flooring materi *633 al.” 1 The court therefore severed the warrant, a
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Granse & Associates, Inc. v. Kimm 529 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Granse & Associates, Inc. v. Kimm 529 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Our responsibility is not "`diluted by counsel's oversights, * * * failure to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities.'" n. 7 (Minn.1990) (quoting Tate, Sua Sponte Consideration on Appeal, in Appellate Judicial Opinions 128 (R. Leflar ed. 1974)).
State v. Williams 525 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1994
State v. Williams 525 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1994
As Justice Rogosheske said over 30 years ago in State v. Peterson, 266 Minn. 77, 83 , an appellate court has a “responsibility to review the record even though the assignments of error are inadequate * * , 673 n. 7 (Minn.1990) (quoting Tate, Sua Sponte Consideration on Appeal, in Appellate Judicial Opinions 128 (R. Leflar ed. 1974)), [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 o
State v. Jones 516 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1994
State v. Jones 516 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1994
However, 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.’ ’’ Id.
GME Consultants, Inc. v. Oak Grove Development, Inc. 515 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
GME Consultants, Inc. v. Oak Grove Development, Inc. 515 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. McCuiston 514 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. McCuiston 514 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
673 n. 7 (Minn.1990) (appellate court's responsibility not diluted by counsel’s omissions or lack of research).
Carousel Automobiles, Inc. v. Gherity 511 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Carousel Automobiles, Inc. v. Gherity 511 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
306 n. 1 (Minn.App.1990) ( , 673 n. 7 (Minn.1990)), pet.
Bock v. Bock 506 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Bock v. Bock 506 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
673 n. 7 (Minn.1990); , 306 n. 1 (Minn.App.1990) (same), pet.
State v. Fakler 503 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1993
State v. Fakler 503 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1993
Nevertheless, 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."
State v. Poole 499 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1993
State v. Poole 499 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1993
we commented that “A warrant which describes things in broad or generic terms may be valid ‘when the description is as specific as the circumstances and nature of the activity under investigation permit.’ ” [Quoting United States v. Santarelli, 778 F.2d 609, 614 (11th Cir.1985) ].
Kelly v. Cataldo 488 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kelly v. Cataldo 488 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
673 n. 7 (Minn.1990) (court will decide without soliciting additional briefs where doctrine was not "either novel or questionable”).
State v. Wermerskirchen 483 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Wermerskirchen 483 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Lee 480 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Lee 480 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Frisinger 478 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Frisinger 478 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Johnson 463 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1990
State v. Johnson 463 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1990
Similarly, which presented a marital privilege scope issue rather than waiver issue, this court expressed an aversion to “erecting artificial ‘barriers to the ascertainment of truth.’ ” Id.
Greenbush State Bank v. Stephens 463 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1990