Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Glidden, 455 N.W.2d 744.

60 citing documents.

Brian Matthew Nash v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. 2024
Brian Matthew Nash v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. 2024
9, 1999, (declining to decide issues not first addressed by the court of appeals and remanding to that court for consideration); (same).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 744, 746 (Minn. 1990) (observing that when an issue was not raised on appeal, “it is proper for an appellate court to decide [such] an issue .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We note “it is proper for an appellate court to decide an issue not raised on appeal only when the reasoning relied upon by the appellate court is neither novel nor questionable.” (citing Hannuksela, d at 673–74 n.7) (determining the court of appeals should not have raised and decided an issue because it was a novel issue the supreme court had not decided before).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The statute gives the prosecutor some measure of “discretion to either prosecute seriatim or aggregate the offenses,” Hanson, d at 485, and also “provide[s] a limit of 6 mont hs on the aggregating period,” State v. Glidden
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Plain error affects substantial rights and is prejudicial if there is a “reasonable likelihood that the giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. W. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Maria Suljic v. Ibrahim Suljic Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Maria Suljic v. Ibrahim Suljic Minn. Ct. App. 2016
App. P. 103.04; n.5 (Minn. 1994) (quotation omitted)
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
Williams v. Commissioner of Public Safety 830 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Williams v. Commissioner of Public Safety 830 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Plain error exists “only if the trial court’s failure seriously affected substantial rights and only if the error was prejudicial error.”
Youngquist v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 716 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Youngquist v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 716 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
Turnage v. State 708 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2006
Turnage v. State 708 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2006
Further, a plainly erroneous jury instruction affects substantial rights if there is a “reasonable likelihood that the giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” Griller, d at 741 ().
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Plain error is prejudicial if there is a “reasonable likelihood that the giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.”
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
State v. Burg 648 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 2002
State v. Burg 648 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 2002
1770 ; Griller, d at 741
State v. Ihle 640 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2002
State v. Ihle 640 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2002
Plain error is prejudicial if there is a “reasonable likelihood that the giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.”
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
1770, 1778 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); (describing plain-error test as “whether there was or was not a reasonable likelihood that any error substantially affected the verdict”).
In Re the Welfare of the Children of Coats 633 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 2001
In Re the Welfare of the Children of Coats 633 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 2001
Needless to say, an appellate court should exercise this authority only sparingly.”
State v. Thole 614 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Thole 614 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
The test for determining “plain error” is whether there exists “a reasonable likelihood that any error substantially affected the verdict.”
State v. Gebremariam 590 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1999
State v. Griller 583 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1998
State v. Griller 583 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1998
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
An error is plain error if there is a “reasonable likelihood that [it] substantially affected the verdict.”
State v. Miller 573 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1998
State v. Miller 573 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1998
Our test for whether an evidentiary admission rises to the level of plain error is “whether there was or was not a reasonable likelihood that any error substantially affected the verdict.” Van Buren, d at 551 ().
Van Buren v. State 556 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1996
The test for determining plain error is “whether there was or was not a reasonable likelihood that any error substantially affected the verdict.” , 747 (Mmn.1990).
State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by