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. Diedrich, 410 N.W.2d 20.

34 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    ”); State v. Diedrich , (affirming obstructing-legal-process conviction where officer detained, but did not arrest, intoxicated passenger of a pulled -over car, stating that “ whether the trooper was lawfully taking [the passenger] into custody by placing her in the patrol car or not is not a defense to the charge o
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    The standard for granting a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause “is whether the facts appearing in the record, including reliable hearsay, would preclude the granting of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal if proved at trial.” State v. Diedrich
  • State of Minnesota v. Stephen Thomas Conlin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Stephen Thomas Conlin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    7 The district court later repeated the last sentence quoted above in response to the jury’s request for “the meaning of force or a dictionary” during its deliberations.3 (noting that the lack of a statutory definition for a word means that the word is so commonly used that it requires no further definition).
  • State v. Dunson 770 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Dunson 770 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Trei, d at 597-99 (holding that the district court erred by determining that probable cause was lacking based on its application of criminal statutes to the undisputed facts of the case); (where dismissal of a complaint is based on errors of law, “further prosecution is effectively blocked”).
  • In re the Welfare of C.M.A. 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re CMA 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re CMA 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In re the Welfare of C.M.A. 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Edwards 589 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Edwards 589 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Hendricks 586 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Hendricks 586 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Duffy 559 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Duffy 559 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    30, 1985); (where dismissal of complaint is based on errors of law, further prosecution is effectively blocked).
  • State v. Marshall 541 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Marshall 541 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Shu Dian Peng 524 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Shu Dian Peng 524 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (dismissal for lack of probable cause based on statutory interpretation is appealable).
  • State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Tolbert 488 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Tolbert 488 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Ciurleo 471 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Ciurleo 471 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Poupard 471 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Poupard 471 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    -6 (Minn.App.1988) (error in permitting defense to call victim as recantation witness and ruling victim’s hearsay statements to police inadmissible); -23 (Minn.App.1987) (error in interpreting statutory definition); pet.
  • State v. Stevens 459 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Stevens 459 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Krawsky 417 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Krawsky 417 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    (defendant pushed officer who was trying to restrain person already arrested).