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. Gray, 413 N.W.2d 107.

43 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    The reason being: “constitutional rights are personal and may not be asserted vicariously.” (quoting Broadrick v. Okl ahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2915 (1973)).
  • Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al., Petitioners, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2915 (1973) (holding that “constitutional rights are personal and may not be asserted vicariously”), quoted in State v. Gray
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Because the Fifth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and because “the protection we afford cannot be less than that afforded by the Federal Constitution,” the federal standard articulated in Chapman applies to our review of this prosecutorial misconduct rather than the two -tiered Caron approach.1 Moreover, such an approach is supported by other Minnesota Supreme Court cases that sidestep any discussion of t he Caron approach when dealing with pro
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    (“[C] onstitutional rights are personal and may not be asserted vicariously.” (quotation omitted)).
  • Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
  • Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
    xpansively than the United States Supreme Court has construed the federal constitution.” -27 (Minn.1985); Wiegand, Harris, d at 98
  • State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Martin 595 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Martin 595 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
    “This, of course, does not mean that we will or should cavalierly construe our constitution more expansively than the United States Supreme Court has construed the Federal Constitution.”
  • Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
  • Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
    10 see M.S.A., Const. Art. 1, §§ 1-17.
  • Humenansky v. Minnesota Board of Medical Examiners 525 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Humenansky v. Minnesota Board of Medical Examiners 525 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    705, 726 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973)
  • Ascher v. Commissioner of Public Safety 505 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Ascher v. Commissioner of Public Safety 505 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    the Minnesota Supreme Court first explicitly recognized the existence of “a right of privacy guaranteed under and protected by the Minnesota Bill of Rights.” The court articulated the scope of protection afforded by that right as the protection only of fundamental rights, and explained: Fundamental r
  • Skeen v. State 505 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1993
  • Skeen v. State 505 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1993
    This court has recognized that fundamental rights are “[t]hose which have their origin in the express terms of the Constitution or which are necessarily to be implied from those terms.” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 607 (5th ed. 1979)).
  • State, City of Minneapolis v. Reha 483 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Davidson 481 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Davidson 481 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1992
    (six-member juries violate state constitution); (determination of fundamental rights not limited by federal Constitution); (Minnesota Constitution provides greater religious liberty than first amendment); (Minnesota equal protection analysis under art
  • State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Willenbring 454 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Willenbring 454 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Dutton 450 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Dutton 450 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    2841 , 92 L.Ed.2d 140 (1986) (upholding laws prohibiting homosexual sodomy); (no fundamental right to engage in sodomous acts in a sex for hire relationship); -63 (Minn.Ct.
  • Johnson v. Hunter 447 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1989
  • Johnson v. Hunter 447 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1989
    Analogously, we have stated the right to establish family relations is “inherent and inalienable.” Thiede v. Scandia Valley, 217 Minn. 218, 224-25 , (scope of constitutional right of privacy).
  • Matter of Schmidt 443 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
  • Matter of Schmidt 443 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
    we acknowledged a right to privacy which includes the right to be free from its invasion by the state without consent under the Minnesota Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
  • State v. Sorenson 441 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Sorenson 441 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Christensen 439 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Christensen 439 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Holt v. State, Board of Medical Examiners 431 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Holt v. State, Board of Medical Examiners 431 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    -48 (Minn.1988) (right to privacy under Minnesota Constitution of committed persons to refuse treatment based on fundamental right to protect own body from invasion without consent); (no fundamental right to engage in sodomy with prostitute).
  • State v. Hamm 423 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Hamm 423 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1988
  • Jarvis v. Levine 418 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1988
  • Jarvis v. Levine 418 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1988
    Given the significant state law issues involved, we feel it is imperative to assume our obligation to be “independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of [our] citizens.” (citations omitted).