Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Due, 427 N.W.2d 276.

21 citing documents.

A20-0592 A20-0594 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Although a surety might not be held accountable when the state makes it impossible for a surety to produce a defendant, review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 276, 278 (Minn. App. 1988) (citing State v. Liakas , (Neb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Taylor v. Taintor , 83 U.S. 366, 369 (1872) (recognizing that “[i]t is the settled law of this class of cases that the bail will be exonerated where the performance of the condition is rendered impossible by the act of God, the act of t he obligee, or the act of the law”) (footnote omitted); (recognizing that a surety’s obligation may be exonerated when the 9 government acts in a way that prevents the surety company’s ability to comply with its obligations), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We are troubled, however, by the district court’s as that case was decided before Minn .
A16-2003 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
r oduce the defendant before relieving itself of liability); Vang, d at 359 (affirming forfeiture of majority of bond where efforts of the surety did not lead to the return of defendant, who remained at large); (reversing forfeiture of bond based, in part, on the surety’s aid in locating the absent defendant); 278 (Minn. App. 1988) (affirming forfeiture where a surety was not notified that defendant failed to appear, because this “in no way pr evented” the surety from learning of the nonappearan
State of Minnesota v. Jose C. Garcia Delaharran, Griffin Bail Bonds, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose C. Garcia Delaharran, Griffin Bail Bonds, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Marie Stellmach, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Marie Stellmach, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-26 (Minn. App. 1998) (concluding that appearance bond served its primary purpose of securing defendant’s appearance at trial when defendant was secured after being at large “for only two months”); cf. Vang, d at 358 (noting that surety had not achieved one of the purposes of bail when it failed to return absent defendant to custody); (stating that bonding company that took no steps to apprehend defendant who failed to appear for court “cannot absolve itself of blame” when it did not monitor def
State of Minnesota v. Draveetray Lyrell Williams, (A14-0696), Lawrence Craig Ogris, (A14-0705), Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Draveetray Lyrell Williams, (A14-0696), Lawrence Craig Ogris, (A14-0705), Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Rodriguez, d at 913 (noting that a bonding company “assumed the risk” of searching for a defendant in its examination of the third Shetsky factor); (“By accepting a premium and agreeing to act as surety, [the bonding company] undertook to ensure [the defendant] would personally appear to answer the charge against him.
State of Minnesota v. Alberto Villa-Barrera, Ability Bonding Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alberto Villa-Barrera, Ability Bonding Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Rodriguez 775 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Rodriguez 775 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Vang 763 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Vang 763 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Rosillo 645 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Rosillo 645 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
278 *740 (Minn.App.1988), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Williams 568 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Williams 568 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
review denied (Minn. Sept.