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. Zanter, 535 N.W.2d 624.

223 citing documents.

  • State v. Dendy 598 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    894 n. 1 (Minn.1998); (holding that critical impact is shown when the suppression significantly reduces the likelihood of successful prosecution).
  • In Re the Welfare of L.E.P. 594 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1999
  • In Re the Welfare of L.E.P. 594 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999
    The critical impact standard is “necessarily a demanding standard.”
  • State v. Robb 590 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Robb 590 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    1(1) provided that in suppression of evidence cases, “the state must ‘clearly and unequivocally’ show both that the trial court’s order will have a ‘critical impact’ on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” ().
  • State v. Harris 589 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Harris 589 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1999
    Our review is limited to ensuring that “the issuing judge had a ‘substantial basis’ for concluding that probable cause existed.” (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    (citing Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 , 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. Scott 584 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Scott 584 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1998
    1(1) provided that in suppression of evidence cases, “the state must ‘clearly and unequivocally’ show both that the trial court’s order will have a ‘critical impact’ on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.”
  • State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    To prevail on appeal from a pretrial order, the state must clearly and unequivocally show both that “the trial court erred in its judgment and * * * the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” (citation omitted)
  • State v. Ward 580 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Ward 580 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    (declining to adopt good faith exception based on Minnesota Constitution); Minnesota State Patrol Troopers Ass’n ex rel.
  • State v. Souto 578 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Edrozo 578 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Edrozo 578 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Souto 578 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1998
    Rather than considering the issue de novo, this court’s task on appeal is to “ensure that the issuing judge had a ‘substantial basis’ for concluding that probable cause existed.”
  • State v. Kahn 555 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Kahn 555 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1996