DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

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