Cited by

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

621 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ann Adrion Schoch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that arguments not raised to the district court are waived on appeal); Minn. R. Civ.
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We generally refuse to consider arguments that are not presented to and decided by the district court, but exceptions may be made for pro se criminal appellants.
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Mikal Leritz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chauncey Lanell Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Joseph Deluney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chauncey Lanell Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Generally, we will not decide issues that were not raised before the district court.1
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Mikal Leritz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“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. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Joseph Deluney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Usually, we “will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court,” but we may “deviate from this rule when the interests of justice require consideration of such issues and doing 4 so would not unfairly surprise a party to the appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court .
Hector Martinez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sadik Abdikadir Yusuf v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ester Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sadik Abdikadir Yusuf v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ester Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that we “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure”).
Hector Martinez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Charles Iepson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Charles Iepson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Armando Jesus Pedraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Colin Michael Haven Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Colin Michael Haven Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that this court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Armando Jesus Pedraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gene Paul Schave Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gene Paul Schave Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (holding that litigants are bound on appeal by the theories upon which the action was tried below).
State of Minnesota v. Brian Leonard Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Leonard Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(providing that objections to the complaint must be 8 made at least three days before the 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).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(explaining that an appellate court will not consider matters, including constitutional questions, that were not argued to and considered by the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Generally an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court.” -56 (Minn. App. 2014) 14 (emphasis added) (), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Rickford Rehmann Munger 858 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”).
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An evidentiary hearing is required when “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. Caroline Mildred Jochum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Todd Timothy Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Todd Timothy Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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).