Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Critt, 554 N.W.2d 93.

28 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating the general rule that district court findings of fact are subject to review for clear error), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Critt , (stating the general rule that district court findings of fact are subject to review for clear error ), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
27, 1986); (stating that judicial findings of fact are subject to review for clear error), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Nov.
In the Matter of the Cross Application of Anthony E. Sampair and Laurie K. Sampair to register the … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Cross Application of Anthony E. Sampair and Laurie K. Sampair to register the … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The [district] court’s factual findings are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review[.]” (reviewing the substantiality of violation of Scales recording requirement), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 93, 95 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1019 , 173 L.Ed.2d 308 (2009); (stating that district court’s factual findings are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(reviewing substantiality of violation of Scales recording requirement), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Verdon 757 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Verdon 757 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(applying clearly erroneous standard of review to judicial findings of fact), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“The [district] court’s factual findings are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Brown 709 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Brown 709 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Inman 692 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2005
State v. Inman 692 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2005
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
review denied (Minn. Nov.
In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
N.W.2d at 815 (police officer suggested county attorney would proceed based on officer’s assessment of case and that if the defendant told “truth” he could go home, and contrasted telling truth with having “hard ass attitude” that could result in juvenile getting “ship[ped]” away); Hough, d at 581 (police implied to juvenile that it was in his best interests to confess); (police implied that they had stronger evidence against juvenile than they actually had), review denied (Minn. Nov.