Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McIntosh v. Davis, 441 N.W.2d 115.

74 citing documents.

State v. Pero 590 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1999
State v. Windish 590 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1999
-20 (Minn.1989) (stating that good cause does not include calendar congestion unless exceptional circumstances exist).
Mauer v. Kircher 587 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Mauer v. Kircher 587 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(stating writ of mandamus may only be granted when no other adequate legal remedy is available).
State v. Aubid 578 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Aubid 578 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Scherger v. Northern Natural Gas Co. 575 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1998
Scherger v. Northern Natural Gas Co. 575 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1998
In Re the Welfare of C.L.S. 558 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Welfare of C.L.S. 558 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct.
M.T.L. v. Dempsey 504 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
M.T.L. v. Dempsey 504 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Haen v. Renville County Board of Commissioners 495 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Haen v. Renville County Board of Commissioners 495 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
To obtain the writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show that the board had a clear and present duty to perform the act requested or, if the act was discretionary, “that failure to perform it ‘was so arbitrary and capricious as to constitute a clear abuse of discretion.’ ” (quoting Baker v. Connolly Cartage Corp., 239 Minn. 72, 74 , ).
State v. Genung 481 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Genung 481 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
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
11.10 allow delays for “good cause.” Indeed, the Minnesota Supreme Court has found that “[bjecause [rule 11.10] permits good cause delay, it cannot be said that a ‘clear official duty’ to absolutely conduct all trials within 60 days is created by the rule.”
State v. Stroud 459 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Stroud 459 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
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”); (upon noncompliance with 60 day delinquency rule, Minn.R.Juv.
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
We are compelled to dismiss the delinquency petitions with prejudice based on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s and under the constitutional speedy trial analysis as set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct.