DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Roby, 463 N.W.2d 506.

59 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    (stating that an appellate court does not “decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve constitutional questions regarding criminal procedure” (quotation omitted)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Guy Israel Greene. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    “A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)); (stating that an appellate court generally will not “decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve constitutional questions regarding criminal procedure” (quotation omitted)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • A24-1949 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    1) (analyzing whether interests-of-justice exception was properly before its court for consideration and analyzing merits of the claim); Thiele v. Stich , ( “A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)); (citing Thiele in a criminal case).
  • James Ervin Owen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (providing that “[a] reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it” (quotation omitted)); (stating that an appellate court does not “decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve constitutional questions regarding criminal procedure” ().
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    Generally, “[w]e do not decide issues which are not first addressed by the [district] court and are raised for the first time on appeal.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    (stating appellate courts “do not decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve constitutional questions regarding criminal procedure” (quotation omitted)).
  • Larry Jonnell Gilbert, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    In State v. Roby , the Minnesota Supreme Court observed that the court “do[es] not decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve constitutional questions regarding criminal procedure.” 14 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • Armando DeLaCruz, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Generally, this court will not “decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve constitutional questions regarding criminal procedure.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • A17-0708 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    (“[Appellate courts] do not decide issues which are not first addressed by the [district] court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve constitutional questions regard ing criminal procedure.” (quotation omitted)).
  • State v. Parker 901 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2017
  • State v. Parker 901 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2017
    (noting that the doctrine of trial-error forfeiture “encourages [litigants] to object while in the trial court so that any errors can be corrected before their full impact is realized” (emphasis added)), (explaining that “[w]e do not decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal”).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    -39 (Minn. 2007) (declining to consider a challenge to the validity of a probationary condition because the challenge was not raised and determined in district court ); (stating that appellate courts generally do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal).
  • State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Leithe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Leithe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    2 Appellant’s counsel argued to the district court, as appellant argues on appeal, that forcing him to pass polygraph examinations for sex-offender treatment violates his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
  • Kyle Richard Greene v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Kyle Richard Greene v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (holding that arguments raised for first time on appeal will not be considered).
  • State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Carey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Carey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Riley v. State 819 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2012
  • Riley v. State 819 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2012
    (explaining that we generally do not decide issues that are raised for the first time on appeal).
  • State v. Campbell 814 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Campbell 814 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
  • Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
  • Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
  • Roby v. State 787 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2010
  • Roby v. State 787 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2010
    The facts of Roby’s case and the procedural history are set forth in more detail in State v. Roby (Roby I), -09 (Minn.1990).
  • State v. Green 747 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Green 747 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2008
    (declining to address issue raised for the first time on appeal).
  • State v. Wembley 728 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Wembley 728 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Holmes 701 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Holmes 701 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Aubid 578 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Aubid 578 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Wallace 558 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Wallace 558 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1997
    ve obligation to show that an addi *474 tional witness would have been found by counsel if an effort was made, and that the witness’s testimony would have made a difference in the outcome of the proceeding); and that appellant’s other contentions are either irrelevant, unsupported by the evidence, inadequate grounds for relief, or improperly raised for the first time on appeal
  • Roby v. State 547 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1996
  • Roby v. State 547 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1996
    See State v. Roby (Roby I), Roby v. State (Roby II)
  • State v. Grube 531 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Grube 531 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1995
  • Roby v. State 531 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1995