DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Doppler, 590 N.W.2d 627.

121 citing documents.

  • Doppler v. State 660 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
  • McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
  • McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
  • Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
  • Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
    this court explained that “[i]n Minnesota, an attorney acts within the objective standard of reasonableness when he provides his client with the representation of an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances.” Id.
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
  • Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
  • Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
    “The scope of review of a postconviction proceeding is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the postconviction court’s findings, and a postconviction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” (placing the burden on appellant to prove an abuse of discretion).
  • Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
  • Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
    We consider an attorney’s actions to be “within the objective standard of reasonableness when [the attorney] provides [the] client with ‘the representation of an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances.’ ” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Fedor 628 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Fedor 628 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    “What evidence to present to the jury, including which witnesses to call, represents an attorney’s decision regarding trial tactics and lies within the proper discretion of trial counsel.”
  • Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
  • Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    “Deciding the credibility of witnesses is generally the exclusive province of the jury.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    (deciding credibility of witnesses is generally exclusive province of jury).