Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Brunes, 373 N.W.2d 381.

23 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
are not properly presented under soundly based and settled rules limiting [appellate courts’] scope of review to issues raised a t trial”); 1 The state relies on two nonprecedential cases: (Minn. App. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-14 (Minn. 1965); d 51, 56 (Minn. App. 1996); rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
David William Reynolds, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Brunes , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2 (stating that the failure to include any “defenses, objections, issues, and requests then available” in a pretrial motion constitutes waiver), -10 (Minn. App. 1994) (holding that a suppression issue first raised after an omnibus hearing is not waived if no prejudice is shown), and State v. Brunes , (holding that defendant’s claim regarding the propriety of an unannounced, nighttime search was waived because defendant first raised the issue in memorandum after an omnibus hearing).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Vaughn Diamond 890 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Oct.
The Janice Kaunas Samsing Revocable Trust v. Arthur D. Walsh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Janice Kaunas Samsing Revocable Trust v. Arthur D. Walsh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
582 (Minn. 1988) (“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotations omitted)); (stating that “an issue first raised in a post-trial motion is not raised in a timely fashion”); (providing that when issues are first raised in a post-hearing memorandum, they are considered waived).
Ryan James Dekok v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ryan James Dekok v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Crisler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Crisler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that defendant waived his constitutional objection to admissibility of evidence by failing to raise the issue at the omnibus hearing), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Danielle Lynn DeMarais Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Danielle Lynn DeMarais Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 550-51, see also State v. Pederson–Maxwell, (noting that “[i]n order for constitutional challenges to the admission of evidence to be timely, objections to such evidence must be raised at the omnibus hearing” in the form of a pretrial motion to suppress); (holding that defendant waived his constitutional objection to admission of evidence by failing to raise the issue at the omnibus hearing), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Pederson-Maxwell 619 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Pederson-Maxwell 619 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See State ex rel Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 555
State v. Lieberg 553 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Lieberg 553 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(declining to address the propriety of an unannounced nighttime search because the defendant first raised it after the omnibus hearing and, thus, deprived the state of an opportunity to present evidence), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Wessels 424 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Wessels 424 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Syrovatka, d at 559 ; Ludow , 308 Minn, at 17, d at 841 ; -86 (Minn. Ct.App.1985), pet.
State v. Marshall 411 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Marshall 411 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 555 , pet.