Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Profit, 591 N.W.2d 451.
- State of Minnesota v. Toby Earl Johnson 851 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Javier Zapien-Arreola Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Javier Zapien-Arreola
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A district court abuses its discretion when it acts “arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to legal usage.” n.3 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted).
- State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
- State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
- State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
-
State v. Tscheu
758 N.W.2d 849
Minn. 2008
(stating that "[t]he fact that no seminal fluid or vaginal injuries were found is not dispositive” of the question of whether the defendant committed first-degree criminal sexual conduct).
- State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
-
State v. Miller
754 N.W.2d 686
Minn. 2008
We have found evidence to be clear and convincing “on the strength of a conviction, a victim’s clear identification of the defendant as the assailant, or the defendant’s own confession of participation in the incident.” ().
- State v. Underdahl 749 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-
State v. Underdahl
749 N.W.2d 117
Minn. Ct. App. 2008
We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, determining whether “the district court acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to legal usage.” , 464 n. 3 (Minn.1999) (quotation omitted).
- State v. Ross 732 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2007
- State v. Ross 732 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2007
- State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
- State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
- In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
-
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R.
713 N.W.2d 891
Minn. Ct. App. 2006
When reviewing evidentiary rulings, “our duty is to look at the record as a whole to determine whether, in light of the evidence therein, the district court acted ‘arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to legal usage.’ ” , 464 n. 3 (Minn.1999) (quotation omitted).
- State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
- State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
- State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
- State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
- State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
- State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
- Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
-
Angus v. State
695 N.W.2d 109
Minn. 2005
(internal citation omitted)
- In Re Estate of Martignacco 689 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-
In Re Estate of Martignacco
689 N.W.2d 262
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
When reviewing evidentiary rulings, this court’s “duty is to look to the record as a whole to determine whether, in light of the evidence therein, the district court acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to legal usage.” , 464 n. 3 (Minn.1999) (quotation omitted).
- County of Blue Earth v. Wingen 684 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- County of Blue Earth v. Wingen 684 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 683 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2004
-
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co.
683 N.W.2d 792
Minn. 2004
Although we have never expressly adopted the doctrine of judicial estoppel, Glass *801 Service urges us to do so in order “to protect the integrity of the judicial process” from parties who play “ ‘fast and loose with the courts.’ ” Konstantinidis v. Chen, 626 F.2d 933, 937 (D.C.Cir.1980) (citation omitted).
- Johnson v. Wright 682 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-
Johnson v. Wright
682 N.W.2d 671
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
713 n. 11 (Minn.2000) (refusing to expressly recognize the theory of judicial estoppel); Illinois Farmers Ins.
- State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Ali 679 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-
State v. Ali
679 N.W.2d 359
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
When reviewing a district court’s evi-dentiary rulings, this court looks “at the record as a whole to determine whether, in light of the evidence therein, the district court acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to legal usage.” , 464 n. 3 (Minn.1999) (quotation omitted).
- Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 669 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co.
669 N.W.2d 420
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(addressing claim in criminal trial that state was judicially estopped from claiming evidence was irrelevant).
- State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
- State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
- State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
- Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
- State v. Dick 638 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Dick 638 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Vanhouse 634 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001