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. Profit, 591 N.W.2d 451.

130 citing documents.

  • State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
  • Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    “[E]ven when a defendant alleges that his constitutional rights were violated, evidentiary questions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (), cert.
  • State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    ANALYSIS I. The trial court’s ruling on severing claims, even if improper, will not be reversed unless “prejudicially erroneous.” ce rt.
  • State v. Kates 610 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Kates 610 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2000
    In doing so, the court of appeals neither acknowledged nor applied this court’s 3 which was filed *631 after Kates’ trial but before the court of appeals’ decision.
  • State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Tovar 605 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Tovar 605 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2000
    1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)
  • State v. Larson 605 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Larson 605 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2000
    (citations omitted): [t]he doctrine of judicial estoppel forbids a party from assuming inconsistent or contradictory positions during the course of a lawsuit.
  • State v. Wolf 605 N.W.2d 381 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Wolf 605 N.W.2d 381 Minn. 2000
    1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)
  • Rogers v. Moore 603 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
  • Rogers v. Moore 603 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
    As we have recently stated, the burden of clear and convincing evidence is less than that required by the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in criminal matters and is met when the truth of the fact to be proven is “highly probable.”
  • State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    “Clear and convincing evidence is more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    See Townsend, d at 296 (stating evidence was prejudicial and erroneously admitted, even though evidence could be properly admitted via Spreigl); (stating evidence was not prejudicially erroneous and could have been legitimately admitted under Minn. R. Evid.
  • State v. Blue 600 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Blue 600 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1999