Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gilmartin, 535 N.W.2d 650.

23 citing documents.

Deontranelle Leslie Davis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 169, 176 (Minn. 2022); see State v. Gilmartin , (“As an intermediate appellate court, we decline to exercise supervisory powers reserved to this state’s supreme court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Lannon Lavar Burdunice, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In relying on Castro, Burdunice acknowledges that he asks this court to adopt a “judiciary- created rule.” Thus, Burdunice effectively asks this court to impose the notice requirement in an exercise of “supervisory powers.” “As an intermediate appellate court, this court will not exercise supervisory powers reserved to the Minnesota Supreme Court.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
16, 2019); review denied (Minn. Sept.
A19-0218 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 747; d 650, 653 (Minn. App. 1995) (emphasizing that as an intermediate appellate court, this court cannot properly exercise “supervisory powers reserved to this state’s supreme court” ), review denied (Minn. Sept.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Gilmartin , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Kokosh v. $4657.00 U.S. Currency 898 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kokosh v. $4657.00 U.S. Currency 898 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Additionally, we have previously declined to exercise any supervisory authority by noting that supervisory powers are “reserved to this state’s supreme court.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Gilmartin , (“As an intermediate appellate court, we decline to exercise supervisory powers reserved to this state’s supreme court.”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Thole v. Commissioner of Public Safety 831 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Thole v. Commissioner of Public Safety 831 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(“As an intermediate appellate court, we.
In re the Welfare of M.K. 805 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of M.K. 805 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(“As an intermediate appellate court, we decline to exercise supervisory powers reserved to this state’s supreme court.”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
gh governing precedent precludes us from permitting plea withdrawal as a remedy here, we recognize that the Minnesota Supreme Court may elect to do so if the supreme court finds it necessary to ensure "the fair administration of justice.” (acknowledging its supervisory power to ensure the fair administration of justice); (declining to exercise supervisory powers reserved for the Minnesota Supreme Court), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(declining to exercise supervisory powers reserved to state supreme court).
State v. Lopez 538 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Lopez 538 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Our holding follows those of two other panels from this court, review denied (Minn. Sept.