DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

621 citing documents.

  • State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Beane 840 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Beane 840 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    (“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court....”).
  • State v. Griffin 834 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Griffin 834 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Thomas 831 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Thomas 831 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • In re the Welfare of R.D.M. 825 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Maddox 825 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Maddox 825 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    (noting that defendant’s “failure to raise the issue before the district court at trial precludes its litigation on appeal”).
  • In re the Welfare of R.D.M. 825 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    (stating that as a general rule, appellate courts will not decide issues that were not first raised in the district court).
  • State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    (“The law is clear in Minnesota that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal.”).
  • State v. Hunter 815 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Hunter 815 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    (holding that even constitutional issues are waived if not raised before the district court).
  • Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
  • Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
    We affirmed the denial of both postconviction petitions in Roby v. State (Roby II), and Roby v. State (Roby III), respectively.
  • Larson v. State 801 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Campos v. State 798 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Campos v. State 798 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    (stating that appellate courts will generally not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court); (stating that issues not briefed on appeal are waived), review denied (Minn. Aug.
  • Anderson v. State 794 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Anderson v. State 794 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    (stating that appellate courts will generally not consider matters not argued and considered by district court).
  • State v. Crawley 789 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Crawley 789 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    (noting that appellate court will generally not consider matters not argued to or decided by the district court).
  • Roby v. State 787 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2010
  • Roby v. State 787 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2010
    We affirmed both the conviction and the denial of Roby’s first two postconviction petitions in Roby I, d at 510 , Roby v. State (Roby II), and Roby v. State (Roby III), respectively.
  • State v. Johnson 770 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Johnson 770 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
    (declining to hear on appeal issues not raised below).
  • State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Reviewing courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”
  • State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Verdon 757 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Verdon 757 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Hodges 757 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Hodges 757 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Bradley 756 N.W.2d 129 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Bradley 756 N.W.2d 129 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    Because we generally will not decide issues that were not raised before the district court, we will review only appellant’s challenge to the chemical-health-recommendations condition.
  • In Re the Welfare of S.J.J. 755 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • In Re the Welfare of S.J.J. 755 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Moen 752 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Moen 752 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Stutelberg v. State 741 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2007