Cited by

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

628 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Xavier Alfred Haywood Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Joseph Traylor Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Cornelius Neal Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“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. Jason John Gascoigne Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”).
State of Minnesota v. Liban Khalif Abdirahman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Roby v. State , (noting appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).
State of Minnesota v. Natausha Rae Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Kuhlmann, d at 852; (stating that “appellate courts generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).
State of Minnesota v. Frankie Dylan Dircks Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Charles Iepson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Angela Lorraine Loose Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Safety , (quotation omitted).5 Appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.” Roby v. State , (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota v. Edgar Noe Lopez-Monter Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Robert Nehring Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Roby v. State , (noting that a failure to raise an issue precludes its litigation on appeal).
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo Dale Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Roby v. State , (holding that a party cannot raise a new issue on appeal).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Eugene Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure”).
Nathan Christopher Braun v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(refusing to consider the merits of an issue raised for the first time on appeal without an adequate record), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Frank Rezac Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. John Melvin Karnes Minn. Ct. App. 2020
8; d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (explaining that an appellate court “generally will not decide issues that were not raised before the district court”).
Bolus Andre Dimbiti v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Rick Alan Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(holding that a party cannot raise a new issue on appeal).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Walter Braunig Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Roby v. State , 3 But appellate courts can “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.” Id.; (considering equal-protection claim “in the inte
Simon Duku Boateng v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Steven Leon Reyes Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1 Generally, this court will not decide an issue that was “not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”
State of Minnesota v. Charlene Marie Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Richard Danell Dunston Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Roby v. State , (stating principle that an appellate court will not decide issues not raised in district court).
In re: the Petition of M.L.H. and J.N.H. to Adopt S.G.P. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Roby v. State , (deeming forfeited constitutional questions not raised in the district court unless consideration is required in the interests of justice and the other party will not be unfairly surprised).
State of Minnesota v. Tom Jr. Trass Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An appellate court “generally will not decide issues that were not raised before the district court.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Alan Bunnell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”).
Prince Lashone Holt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“An evidentiary hearing upon a petition for postconviction relief is not required unless the petitioner alleges such facts which, if proved by a fair preponder ance of the evidence, would entitle him or her to the requested relief.”
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 543, 553 (Minn. 2010) (providing that objections to complaint must be made at least three days before omnibus hearing or they are waived); (holding that issues not raised in district court, including “constitutional questions of criminal procedure,” are generally not considered for the first time on appeal).
Leonard Connell Brown, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that a reviewing court “will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”); see also State v. Marsh, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ , 2019 WL 2571677, at *3 (Minn. App. June 24, 2019) (holding that when the parties agr
John Louis Corrigan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Andersen v. State , d 417, 428 n.11 (Minn. 2018) (citing Roby v. State , ) 3 To the extent Corrigan argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Adrian Thomas Howell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that review of a rul e 26.01, subdivision 4, proceeding is limited to the dispositive pretrial ruling); (stating that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court); State v. B utcher, (stating that issues not adequately briefed are waived), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Ramiro Alejandro Pena Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Reuel Moshe Yehuda Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Arron Whitney McDole Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure”); State v. Carroll , d 623, 629 n.3 (Minn. App. 2002) (“A party may not obtain review by raising the same issue under a
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. A. H Minn. Ct. App. 2019
15a (2018) (“‘Must’ is mandatory.”); (“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”); (refusing to consider constitutional issue because arguments were not raised in the district court).
State v. Marsh 931 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Marsh 931 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Roby v. State , , 357 (Minn. 1996) (stating that a reviewing court "will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.").
William Marcus Daniel Edwards Appellant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996).
State of Minnesota v. Damon Ray Garnett Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Michael David Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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.” Roby v. State
State of Minnesota, vs Zachariah Daniel Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Olimpia Onofre Cedillo, et al v. Herbert Azubuike Igbanugo, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[L]itigants are bound [ on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.”); (holding that an appellate court generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Michael Windell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[An appellate court] generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court .
David Wayne Benolt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996); review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Lewonda Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (noting that an appellate court “generall y will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”).
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Roby v. State , , 357 (Minn. 1996) ; see also State v. Wickner , , 862-63 (Minn. App. 2004) (declining to address appellant's vindictive-prosecution argument because appellant did not raise the issue at trial), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Brendon Scott Vagle Minn. Ct. App. 2019
was not raised to the district court.” An appellate court “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”