Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hamm, 423 N.W.2d 379.

63 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
But the state and federal constitutions only require those elements that are “the essence of the jury itself,” which does not include t he “particular qualification of jurors.” State v. Hamm , (quotation omitted) , superseded on other grounds by Minn. Const. art. I, § 4 (amended 1988).
League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
In re Welfare of E.D.J., 502 NW.2d at 781 ; Harris, d at 97
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
*111 (holding that the Minnesota Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant’s right to a 12-person jury in misdemeanor prosecutions and, adopting the Supreme Court’s clear break exception, applying rule prospectively), superseded on other grounds by Minn. Const. art. I, § 4; see Griffith v. Kentucky
State v. Roberts 651 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Roberts 651 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Neely 604 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Neely 604 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
We have stated that a decision of the Supreme Court interpreting a provision of the United States Constitution that is identical to a provision of the Minnesota Constitution is “of inherently persuasive, although not necessarily compelling, force.”
State v. Martin 595 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Martin 595 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Baker v. State 590 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1999
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
E.D.J., (declining to lower Minnesota’s standards for searches and seizures to federal level); (equal protection analysis under Minnesota law more stringent than federal law); -98 (Minn.1990) (greater religious liberties under state law than under federal law); -81 (Minn.1988) (12-member jury required under state but not federal law).
State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
Baker v. State 590 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1999
Diemer v. Carlson 550 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 1996
Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
hemical testing stage of a DWI proceeding); (adopting stricter equal protection rational basis standard than federal courts); (religious liberties); (bodily integrity); (fundamental right of education); (right to 12-member jury) (subsequently overruled by constitutional amendment).
Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition v. Keefe 535 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1995
State v. Flournoy 535 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1995
State v. Flournoy 535 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1995
Minn. Const, art. I, § 6
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
1691, 1692 , 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976)
State v. Bowles 530 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1995
State v. Bowles 530 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1995
1691, 1692 , 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976)
Ascher v. Commissioner of Public Safety 519 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1994
Neal v. State Farm Insurance Co. 509 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Neal v. State Farm Insurance Co. 509 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Larson v. Sando 508 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Larson v. Sando 508 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Elbers v. Growe 502 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Elbers v. Growe 502 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Blilie 494 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1993
Matter of Blilie 494 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1993
However, a duly-enacted statute carries with it “a presumption of constitutionality,” and a party challenging the statute' must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates a claimed right.
In Re the Welfare of D.L. 486 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1992
In Re the Welfare of D.L. 486 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1992
State v. Davidson 481 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1992
State v. Davidson 481 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1992
(six-member juries violate state constitution); (determination of fundamental rights not limited by federal Constitution); (Minnesota Constitution provides greater religious liberty than first amendmen
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1991
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1991
for the proposition that contemporaneous history is a legitimate ground for interpreting the state constitution.
State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Respondent concedes we may interpret the state constitution more broadly than the comparable federal provisions, but points out a court will “not do so lightly.”
State v. Sanderson 469 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Sanderson 469 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1991