Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Manley, 664 N.W.2d 275.

100 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Larondo Connell Willis Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Randy Lee Chock Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(noting that a court need not address all three prongs if the appellant is unable to establish one of the prongs).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Douglas Nelson Minn. 2026
(noting that we may address the prongs of the plain- error analysis in any order).
Theodore Lockhart, Sr., Relator v. Hennepin County Minn. 2026
Theodore Lockhart, Sr., Relator v. Hennepin County Minn. 2026
(striking arguments in a brief that are not supported by the record).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Martez Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Martez Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Joseph Casserly Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Joseph Casserly Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Mark Derby Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Hecker v. Hecker , n.2 (Minn. App. 1996), aff’d, (refusing to consider portions of a pro se brief that contained only argument and that was unsupported by the facts in the record).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. James Nyonteh, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. James Nyonteh, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jairo Missael Fernandez Sorto Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jairo Missael Fernandez Sorto Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(granting a motion to strike and refusing to consider portions of a pro se brief that contained only argument and were not supported by the facts in the record).
State of Minnesota v. Jordan William Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(reasoning that credibility of two child 7 witnesses was challenged by cross-examination regarding whether children were confused or no longer recalled events).
A23-0588 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Charles Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(noting that while “[n]ormally, we would consider each prong of the plain-error test in order,” the court is not required to do so when the claimed error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights).
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(summarily rejecting pro-se claims, noting, “we have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that those claims have no merit”).
State of Minnesota v. Marc Richard Redmond Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 678, 681 n.2 (Minn. App. 1996), aff’d, (refusing to consider portions of pro se briefs that contain only argument and are not supported by the facts in the record).
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Alberto Martinez Reyes Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(reasoning that credibility of two child 6 witnesses was challenged by cross-examination questions asking whether children were confused or had difficulty recalling events).
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Jesus Pomavilla Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Moses Louis Hubert Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(declining to addr ess arguments raised in supplemental pro se brief that were “unsupported by any facts in the record” and contained “no citation to any relevant legal authority”).
State of Minnesota v. William Demont White, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(considering arguments forfeited when they are unsupported by facts in the record and contain “no citation to any relevant legal authority”).
State of Minnesota v. Lindsey Damien Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Manley , (declining to address arguments raised in supplemental pro se brief that were “unsupported by facts in the record” and contained “no citation to any relevant legal authority”).
State of Minnesota v. Eduardo Delariva-Larios Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(deeming as waived pro se arguments that do not cite to relevant legal authority).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Shantha Jayapathy Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Manley , 1 Minn. Stat. § 609.115, subd.
State of Minnesota (A18-1579) (A18-1569) v. William Cornell Walker (A18-1569) (A18-1579) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Pierre A. Goudiaby v. Sky Water Technology Foundry, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(considering arguments forfeited when they are unsupported by facts in the record and contain “no citation to any relevant legal authority”).
State of Minnesota v. Laurie Ann McIntyre Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(granting a motion to strike portions of a brief that were unsupported by any facts in the record); see also Minn. R. Civ.
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
" State v. Manley , , 289 (Minn. 2003) (quoting State v. Ture , , 632 (Minn. 2001) ).
Walter Johann Happel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(considering arguments forfeited when they are unsupported by facts in the record and contain no citation to relevant legal authority).
Walter Nachtigall v. Marriott International, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Manley , (deeming argument s that include “no citation to any relevant legal authority” waived).
Cesar De La Garza v. Commissioner of Corrections, Tom Roy Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(considering arguments forfeited when they are unsupported by facts in the record and contain no citation to relevant legal authority).
State of Minnesota v. Jefferey Mariner Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(considering arguments forfeited when they are unsupported by facts in th e record and contain no citati on to relevant legal authority).
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Ray Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(refusing to consider portions of pro se briefs that contain only argument and are not supported by the facts in the record).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(c onsidering arguments waived when they lack factual support in the record and contain no citation to relevant legal authority).
State of Minnesota v. Abdirizak Osman Salad Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-84 (Minn. 2003) (noting that the deferential standard applied to removal of a prospective juror for cause also applies to removal of a sworn juror); see also State v. Munt , 576 (Minn. 2013) (noting that appellate “review of the district court’s determination of juror impartiality is especial
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Lamee Motley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 275, 286 (Minn. 2003) (consi dering arguments forfeited when they are unsupported by facts in the record and contain no citation to relevant legal authority).
State of Minnesota v. Dion Lavell Abrams Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Manley , (deeming arguments forfeited on appeal that are unsupported by facts in the record and contain no citation to relevant legal authority).
State of Minnesota v. Johnnie Robert Capers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnnie Robert Capers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(deeming as waived pro se arguments that do not cite to relevant legal authority).
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(refusing to consider portions of appellant’s argument that were not supported by legal authority or facts in the record).
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(refusing to consider portions of a pro se brief that contain only argument and are not supported by legal authority or facts in the record).