Cited by

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

628 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that the reviewing “court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Duane Warner Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.” see also State v. LaBarre , (stating that issues “raised for the first time on appeal .
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
ress sua sponte an argument regarding the application of the amelioration doctrine which was not raised by a party to the case, Robinette, d at 147 n. 6, we have the discretion to reach issues that would otherwise be forfeited when the “interests of justice require consideration of such issues” and our consideration “would not unfairly surprise a party to the appeal,” see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Shevirio Kavirion Childs -Young Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Roby v. State , (stating that generally, an appellate court will address only the issues that the record shows were 6 disagree that these reasons support fair -and-just withdrawal.
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Scott Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(recognizing that appellate courts generally do not decide issues not raised before the district court); (recognizing that arguments that are inadequately briefed are forfeited).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Donald Knott Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“An appellate court generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court.” (), rev’d on other grounds
Explained State of Minnesota v. Charles Calvin Lockhart Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Brett Thomas Green Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Roby v. 16 State, (holding that issues, even constitutional issues, are waived on appeal if not raised to the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Aimee Jo Wood Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Trever Joseph Palodichuk Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“[An appellate court] will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”).
Matthew Howard Isensee v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(concluding that pro se defendant’s assertions are waived if they contain no argument or legal authority to support allegations); Hecker v. Hecker , n.2 (Minn. App. 1996) (requiring that material assertions of fact be supported by citation to the record), aff’d, d 705 (Minn. 1997); (concluding that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).
State of Minnesota v. Noe Roushbel Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Generally, this court will not “decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”
State of Minnesota v. Jerimiah Micheal McFee Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Brian Adam Burba Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Moreover, an appellate court “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”
State of Minnesota v. Keith Melvin Baerg Minn. Ct. App. 2022
n.6 (Minn. 2017) (applying this rule to constitutional questions).
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin John Joyce Minn. Ct. App. 2022
invalidat[ing] any findings.” We decline to address the merits of this argument as we “will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”
State of Minnesota v. Nancy Jean Feltus Minn. Ct. App. 2022
n to suppress, Feltus argued only that the trooper impermissibly expanded the scope of the traffic stop by “requesting [that she] exit the vehicle to conduct driving impaired testing [sic].” In reviewing a district court’s decision, we “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”
State of Minnesota v. Bounkieng Sinthavong Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that an appellate court generally will not decide issues that were not raised in the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Christina Lee Bohnstedt Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[Appellate courts] generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”
State of Minnesota v. Mark Franklin, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Michael Bishop Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Moreover, we “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district co urt.” Roby v. State
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Lee Tonnessen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Roby v. State , (holding that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”).
State of Minnesota v. Aleksandr Viktorovich Lelyukh Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. R. C.-A., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2021
postponed trial caused hi s witnesses to be 26 unavailable, and (3) grandfather’s petition for the HRO was “forged under perjury without home owners authorization, knowledge or consent.” Because Randall did not raise his first two arguments in the district court, they are forfeited on appeal.11 We “will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.” Roby v. State
Nikita Nikel Dixon v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Larry Eugene Burrell, Jr. Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Christopher Kurtenbach Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not rais ed before the district court.” Roby v. State
Darrell Evans Fulks, petitioner, Respondent, vs. State of Minnesota, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Justin Scott Sehr Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Eric Kenny Hagerman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See, e.g., Roby v. State , d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (explaining that appella te courts generally decline to consider matters not first argued to and considered by the district c ourt).
State of Minnesota v. Warren James Northrup Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Generally, an appellate court “will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal proce dure.” Roby v. State
John Kotowski v. Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner of Human Services, et al., Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lamar Mutcherson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(holding that an issue not raised to the district court is forfeited on appeal).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Andrew Hondl Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating that appellate court will not decide issues not raised before district court); (stating that inadequately briefed issues are not properly before this court) , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Jayson John Rogahn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Roby v. State , (declining to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal).
State of Minnesota v. Gabriel Miguel Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Stephen Schuety Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Martinez Damian Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Robert Webb, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(applying principle to criminal cases).
Trejuan Dominic Miller v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But we do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, and Miller did not raise this argument in the district court.
James Michael Soderbeck v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
7 (stating appellate courts generall y do not address issues or theo ries not raised in district court).
State of Minnesota v. Romeo Deville Eady Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questi ons of criminal procedure.” Roby v. State , (concluding defendant forfeited challenge to probable cause determination by failing to raise issues at omnibus hea ring).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Joseph Haman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Michael D. Perseke v. Jodi Harpstead, et al., Paul Schnell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Nicholas Adam Willard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We generally do not consider i ssues not raised before the district court, so this too is not a basis for us to reverse the district court.
State of Minnesota v. Abdullahi Ahmed Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996).
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Cardinale Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Scott Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2020