DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fox v. State, 474 N.W.2d 821.

97 citing documents.

  • Ives v. State 655 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2003
  • Shoen v. State 648 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2002
  • Shoen v. State 648 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2002
  • Bolinger v. State 647 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Bolinger v. State 647 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    (holding that four-year delay in petitioning for postconviction relief weighed against appellant).
  • Boitnott v. State 640 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2002
  • Boitnott v. State 640 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2002
    (affirming a denial in part because of an 18 year delay in filing, a petition); (affirming a denial in part because of an 8-year delay in filing a petition).
  • Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
  • Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
    (holding that filing postconviction petition 7 years after appeal, 8 years after conviction, and 4 years after ending the drug use that allegedly made petitioner unable to bring a petition for relief weighed against petitioner).
  • Sanders v. State 628 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2001
  • Sanders v. State 628 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2001
  • Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
  • Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
    -25 (Minn.1991) (citation omitted).
  • Ademodi v. State 616 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2000
  • Ademodi v. State 616 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2000
    (considering substantive claim where defendant was under effects of anti-psychotic medication at time of trial and appeal); see also Roby, d at 484 n. 2 (noting Fox allowed substantive review because of “unique facts”).
  • State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
    (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Sykes v. State 578 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Sykes v. State 578 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    (holding “appellant’s delay in seeking relief is a relevant consideration in determining whether that relief should be granted”).
  • Dunn v. State 578 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 1998
  • Dunn v. State 578 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 1998
    Moreover, “delay in seeking relief is * * * relevant [to] * * * determining whether that relief should be granted.”
  • Sutherlin v. State 574 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1998
  • Sutherlin v. State 574 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1998
    See also Black, d at 85 (dismissing in part *433 because of 18-year delay); (dismissing in part because of 8-year delay).
  • State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
  • Robinson v. State 567 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
  • Robinson v. State 567 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
    (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Hale v. State 566 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1997
  • Hale v. State 566 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1997
  • Rainer v. State 566 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1997
  • Rainer v. State 566 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1997
    Knaffla , 309 Minn, at 252, d at 741 .
  • Black v. State 560 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1997
  • Black v. State 560 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1997
    “[Djelay in seeking relief is a relevant consideration in determining whether that relief should be granted.”
  • Berg v. State 557 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • Berg v. State 557 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
  • Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
  • McMaster v. State 551 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1996
  • McMaster v. State 551 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1996
  • Roby v. State 547 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1996
  • Roby v. State 547 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1996
    “Only where a claim is so novel that it can be said that its legal basis was not reasonably available at the time direct appeal was taken and decided will post-conviction relief be allowed.”
  • Hanley v. State 534 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
  • Hanley v. State 534 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
    This court has held that “[o]nly where a claim is so novel that it can be said that its legal basis was not reasonably available at the time direct appeal was taken and decided will post-conviction relief be allowed.” ().
  • Roby v. State 531 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1995
  • Roby v. State 531 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1995
  • Hoagland v. State 518 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1994
  • Hoagland v. State 518 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1994