DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Parker v. O'PHELAN, 428 N.W.2d 361.

97 citing documents.

  • Maudsley v. Pederson 676 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    710, 713 (D.Minn.1988); Parker v. O’Phelan, aff'd
  • State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    As the supreme court noted over ten years ago, repeated warnings to the prosecution against employing improper trial tactics “appear to have been to no avail.”
  • State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    (“scorpion” fable an improper character reference); (characterization of defendant as “an animal” improper).
  • Canfield v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. 610 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Anderson v. Rengachary 608 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2000
  • Anderson v. Rengachary 608 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2000
    P. 6.02 * ⅜ ⅜.” see also Parker v. O’Phelan, aff 'd without opinion
  • State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
    In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence to support a verdict, we look to “whether, based on the facts established [by the record].and any legitimate inferences that can be drawn from them, a jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty of the offense.”
  • State v. Peou 579 N.W.2d 471 Minn. 1998
    In reviewing the record, “we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, assuming the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
  • State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
    See Atkins, d at 647-48 (noting that prosecutorial misconduct does not in and of itself require that the defendant be granted a new trial; the test is whether the defendant received a fair trial); -73 (Minn.1988).
  • State v. Schmitz 559 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    (due process requires that the state prove each of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt).
  • Stroud v. Hennepin County Medical Center 556 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1996
  • Stroud v. Hennepin County Medical Center 556 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1996
    See also Parker v. O Phelan, affid by equally divided court
  • Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
    Insofar as our response to prosecutorial misconduct after that time grew more stringent vfith our experience and the need for deterrence, -73 (Minn.1988) (warning prosecutors of potential reversal due to improper statements in closing arguments “for the last time”), Rairdon may not reap any benefit from such decisions merely because he waited nine years to seek review.
  • State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
    To impose liability under the aiding and abetting statute, the state must show “some knowing role in the commission of the crime by a defendant who takes no steps to thwart its completion.” ().
  • State v. Flournoy 535 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Wilson 535 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Pierson 530 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1995
  • Lombardo v. Seydow-Weber 529 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • Lombardo v. Seydow-Weber 529 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    710, 713 (D.Minn.1988); Parker v. O’Phelan, aff 'd
  • State v. Thompson 520 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    Salitros, d at 820 ; -73 (Minn.1988).
  • State v. Richardson 514 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    We cannot say, however, that evidence of appellant’s guilt is “overwhelming.” See
  • State v. Russell 503 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1993
    The state meets its burden, however, by showing “ ‘some knowing role in the commission of the crime’ by a defendant who ‘takes no steps to thwart its completion.’ ” ().
  • Paulos v. Johnson 502 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    Parker v. O’Phelan, aff'd
  • State v. Salitros 499 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Walsh 495 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1993
    Defendant further complains of the prosecutor’s remark that “if we don’t hold people accountable for the crimes they commit then the whole criminal justice system as we know it begins to lose its meaning.” See, -73 (Minn.1988) (appeals to law and order are inappropriate).
  • State v. Lefthand 488 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1992
    However, these warnings appear to have been to no avail.”
  • State v. Berry 484 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1992
    State v. Parker, 282 Minn. 343, 355
  • State v. Cuypers 481 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1992
    See, (no merit to argument that rage over alleged rape that had happened earlier in the day provoked killing where killing occurred during robbery); (rage arising from knowledge that victim had previously abused sister insufficient provocation); State v. Ha
  • State v. Shepherd 477 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Moore 458 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1990
    and State v. Malzac, 309 Minn. 300, 306
  • State v. Glaze 452 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1990
    Standards section 3-5.8(b) when he said, “When I think about this case, I’m just outraged.” “In recent years, we have become increasingly concerned about prosecutorial misconduct in criminal trials.” (prosecutor’s remarks to grand jury found prejudicial); -73 (Minn.1988) (prosecutor’s closing argument deemed “deplorable”).
  • Maloney v. Fairview Community Hospital 451 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    See Parker v. O’Phelan, opinion aff'd, by an evenly divided supreme court
  • Henke v. Dunham 450 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Mosby 450 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Henke v. Dunham 450 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    § 145.682 was adopted by the legislature in an attempt to “eliminate nuisance malpractice suits.” Parker v. O’Phelan, affd by an equally divided court
  • Moen v. Mikhail 447 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Moen v. Mikhail 447 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Parker v. O’Phelan, aff 'd
  • Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 444 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 444 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Parker v. O’Phelan, affd by an equally divided court
  • Blohm v. Minneapolis Urological Surgeons, P.A. 442 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Blohm v. Minneapolis Urological Surgeons, P.A. 442 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Parker v. O’Phelan, aff 'd (citing Universal Construction Co. v. Peterson, 280 Minn. 529, 530-31 , ).
  • Stern v. Dill 442 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1989
  • Stern v. Dill 442 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1989
    In so doing, the court noted that if there had been a proper motion, it probably would have been granted for excusable neglect, citing Parker v. O’Phelan, aff 'd by an equally divided court
  • Criticized State v. Johnson 441 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1989
    See, (prosecutor’s closing argument tactics criticized as “deplorable”).
  • State v. Tennin 437 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    regarding prosecutorial conduct and recognize that a pattern of improper prosecutorial remarks may earmark future convictions for reversal, we conclude under the facts of this record that the prosecutor’s remarks did not rise to the serious level of misconduct which would require reversal.
  • Stern v. Dill 430 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    See Parker v. O’Phelan, aff'd by an equally divided court, (“The policy behind the rules of civil procedure * * * is to try cases on the merits and seek a just determination of every action.”).
  • State v. Robinson 427 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1988