Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bluhm, 676 N.W.2d 649.

52 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Jagger Crawford Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Jagger Crawford Minn. Ct. App. 2024
As to the application of mandatory-minimum sentencing provisions in the context of controlled-substance crimes, in State v. Bluhm, the supreme court held that “Minnesota Statutes [section] 152.025, subdivision 3(b) (2002), requires that a mandatory minimum six-month jail term be imposed and served when an offender has a previous qualifying controlled substance conviction.”
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. M. F., J. G.-T. N., and … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Bluhm , (stating that “the legislature may restrict the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing, such as by providing for mandatory sentences”).
State v. Franson 921 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Franson 921 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5a ; see also State v. Bluhm , , 652 (Minn. 2004) (noting that "shall" is mandatory).
State v. Smith 899 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Bluhm , d 649, 653 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Whether a statute “requires a mandatory minimum term of incarceration is a question of statutory construction which [appellate courts] review[] de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Whether [a statute] requires a mandatory minimum term of incarceration is a question of statutory construction which [appellate] court[s] review[] de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
15, 2011); (stating that “the legislature may restrict the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing, such as by providing for mandatory sentences” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Esteban J. Ramos, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Esteban J. Ramos, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“[W]hen the legislature’s intent is clear from plain and unambiguous statutory language, [an appellate] court does not engage in any further construction and instead looks to the plain meaning of the statutory language.” (quotation omitted)).
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
§ 645.16; Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd.
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“[W]hen the legislature’s intent is clear from plain and unambiguous statutory language, this court does not engage in any further construction and instead looks to the plain meaning of the statutory language.” (quotation omitted).
Christianson v. Henke 831 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2013
Ruiz v. 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, LLC 829 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 2013
Ruiz v. 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, LLC 829 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 2013
State v. Rick 821 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Rick 821 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“[W]hen the legislature’s intent is clear from plain and unambiguous statutory language, this court does not engage in any further construction and instead looks to the plain meaning of the statutory language.” (quotation omitted).
Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 819 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2012
Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 819 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2012
Otto’s Home v. Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., -40 (Minn.1989)
Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 802 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 802 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Leathers 799 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 2011
State v. Leathers 799 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 2011
State v. Adams 791 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Adams 791 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
In Re the Risk Level Determination of G.G. 771 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Risk Level Determination of G.G. 771 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Welfare of the Child of S.S.W. 767 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Welfare of the Child of S.S.W. 767 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jiles 767 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jiles 767 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In re the Risk Level Determination of M.D. 766 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re Md 766 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In re the Risk Level Determination of M.D. 766 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re Md 766 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Sands v. Commissioner of Public Safety 744 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Sands v. Commissioner of Public Safety 744 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
City of Granite Falls v. Soo Line Railroad 742 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
City of Granite Falls v. Soo Line Railroad 742 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2007