Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354.

628 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Caroline Mildred Jochum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that appellate court only decides issues raised before the district court); (holding that issues not briefed on appeal are waived).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonny Spillum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ricardo Mastrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonny Spillum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ricardo Mastrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(explaining that an appellate court will not consider issues that were not raised before the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n. 3 (Minn. App. 2002) (“A party may not obtain review by raising the same issue under 8 a different theory.”), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that “[t]his court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that appellate courts generally do not decide issues not raised before the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mohammed Mohammed Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mohammed Mohammed Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Generally an appellate court will not decide issues that were not raised before the district court, but an appellate court may, at its discretion, deviate from this rule “when the interests of justice require consideration of such issues and doing so would not unfairly surprise a party to the appeal.” see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Irving Stevenson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Irving Stevenson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Wayne Behrens, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Wayne Behrens, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that generally an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(declining to review an argument for the first time on appeal).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthoni McMorris-Rice Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthoni McMorris-Rice Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”).
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Typically, “an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court.”
Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
John Patrick Murphy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
John Patrick Murphy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An evidentiary hearing upon a petition for postconviction relief is not required unless the petitioner alleges such facts which, if proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would entitle him or her to the requested relief.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Alan Boos Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Alan Boos Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 724, 727 (Minn. App. 1995) (noting that a defendant may waive a privilege claim by failing to assert it); (noting that appellate courts generally refuse to consider issues “not raised before the district court”).
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
in support of its standard of review argument.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Terry Gene Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew William Serres Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew William Serres Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Serres argues that the “logic of these decisions is compelling,” and he urges this court to “adopt it.” The state objects to our consideration of this issue, arguing that it is not properly before this court because it was not raised below.1 (“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”).
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that an appellate court generally will not consider matters that were not argued and considered below).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Terry Gene Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”).
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(refusing to address issues not raised before district court, “including constitutional questions of criminal procedure”); (same), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(noting that issues not raised in the district court are generally waived on appeal).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. R. M., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Although this court generally will not decide issues that were not raised in district court, we may “deviate from this rule when the interests of justice require consideration of such issues and doing so would not unfairly surprise a party to the appeal.” see also Minn. R. Crim.