Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 479 N.W.2d 387.

206 citing documents.

State v. Wiggins 788 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
at 1884-85 ; aff'd, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) as follows: even in the absence of probable cause, the “police may stop and frisk a person when (1) they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a suspect might be engaged in criminal activity and (2) the officer reasonably believes the suspect might be armed and dangerous.” , 843 (1992) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 30 , 88 S.Ct.
In Re the Welfare of T.L.S. 713 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
aff'd 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Welfare of M.D.R. 693 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See, (holding that defendant’s evasive conduct after eye contact with police and observed departure from a building with a history of drug activity justified the stop), aff'd, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
Roth v. Weir 690 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Roth v. Weir 690 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“[0]n rare occasions” appellate courts have exercised [their] discretion to allow a party to proceed on a theory not raised at trial.” see Minn. R. Civ.App.
State v. Miller 659 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
aff 'd, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Doren 654 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(trial court’s findings not reversed unless clearly erroneous, and great deference given to court’s determinations regarding credibility of witnesses), aff'd, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Schluter 653 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
843 (Minn.1992); review denied (Minn. Aug.
Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2001
Schumacher v. Schumacher 627 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schumacher v. Schumacher 627 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See also Martens v. Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 622 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(appellate court shows great deference to a fact-finder’s determinations of credibility), aff'd ., 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Miranda 622 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Pederson-Maxwell 619 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
aff'd, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
State v. Wasson 602 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Searches not covered by warrants “are per se unreasonable under the fourth amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Richmond 602 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
aff'd, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
we considered whether freedom of the press under Article I, Section 3 should be more expansively protected than under the Federal Constitution.
State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
aff 'd 508 U.S. at 378-79 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Varnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
aff'd 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Yarnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
aff'd 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
Deli v. University of Minnesota 578 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Deli v. University of Minnesota 578 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(providing elements of prom *782 issory estoppel).
State v. Hardy 577 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1998
State v. Ingram 570 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
aff'd, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
Watson v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 566 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1997
Watson v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 566 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1997
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 560 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1997
aff'd, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Burton 556 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
aff'd, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Turner 550 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1996
State v. Turner 550 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1996
(declining to construe Minnesota’s free speech provision to give greater protection than the federal version).
State v. Pike 543 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(trial court’s findings not reversed unless clearly erroneous, and great deference given to court’s determinations regarding credibility of witnesses), aff'd, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.
In Re the Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 542 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Appellant actually cites to the Minnesota Supreme Court case
Deli v. Hasselmo 542 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Deli v. Hasselmo 542 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Faimon v. Winona State University 540 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Faimon v. Winona State University 540 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See, [hereinafter Cohen II], We can find no case law suggesting the fruitfulness of searching for this “intent” on the promisor’s part as opposed to exploring the promisor's reasonable expectations.
Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. 537 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1995
Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. 537 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1995
In Cohen v. Cowles Media, Co., however, we indicated that “on rare occasions [we have] exercised our discretion to allow a party to proceed on a theory not raised at trial.” remanded on reh’g, (Minn. Mar.
State v. Zanter 535 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1995
e “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement, the police may, without a warrant, seize an object they believe to be the fruit or instrumentality of a crime, provided: “(1) [the] police are legitimately in the position from which they view the object; (2) they have a lawful right of access to the object; and (3) the object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent.” -45 (Minn.1992) (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct.
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc. 526 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1995
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc. 526 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1995
Geraci v. Eckankar 526 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Geraci v. Eckankar 526 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90(1) (1981)).
In Re the Welfare of E.D.J. 502 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1993
-43 (Minn.1992) (upholding stop of defendant after he came out of a well-known crack house, caught the eye of a police officer, then made a sudden change in direction and began walking away from the officer), aff'd, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct.
Spinnaker Software Corp. v. Nicholson 495 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 1993