Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Friberg, 435 N.W.2d 509.

112 citing documents.

In Re the Welfare of G.D. 473 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of G.D. 473 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
“Generally, conditions of probation must be reasonably related to the purposes of sentencing and must not be unduly restrictive of the probationer’s liberty or autonomy.”
Matter of Welfare of Jjh 446 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Matter of Welfare of Jjh 446 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(60 day misdemeanor rule not mandatory procedural right “because it explicitly allows” longer delays, for good cause); (because 60 day felony rule permits good cause delay, compliance not a “clear official duty”)
State v. Reese 446 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Reese 446 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
However, decided after the trial of this case, holds that the 60-day limit in Rule 11.10 simply raises a presumption that a violation has occurred.
In Re the Welfare of J.G.B. 443 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Welfare of J.G.B. 443 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972)
McIntosh v. Davis 441 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1989
McIntosh v. Davis 441 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1989
We recently addressed the issue of a trial delay beyond the 60-