Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 514 N.W.2d 551.

108 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.D.B., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.D.B., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2026
n.8 (Minn. 1994) (noting that “comments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure exist to guide the court, not to bind it”).
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Respondent, vs. True Gravity Ventures, LLC, et al., Respondents, Astra Genstar ... Minn. 2025
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Respondent, vs. True Gravity Ventures, LLC, et al., Respondents, Astra Genstar ... Minn. 2025
(“[T]he judicial function constitutionally empowers the courts to make their 12 own rules of procedure.”); –54 (Minn. 1994) (recognizing that “since the 1956 amendment to the Judiciary Article of the Minnesota Constitution removed the constitutional requirement that pleadings and proceedings be under the direction of the legislative body,” our rules of procedure govern on the topic).
Sela Investments, Ltd LLP v. J. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Sela Investments, Ltd LLP v. J. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Devondre Demont Pike Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Devondre Demont Pike Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, d 551, 555 (Minn. 1994) (determining that “[because] the conflicting statute and rule concern matters of procedural law, the rule controls”).
Certified Question United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Minn. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
( 554 n.5 (Minn. 1994)).
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
A procedural rule “ ‘neither creates a new cause of action nor deprives [a] defendant of any defense on the merits.’ ” Losh, d at 891 (quoting State v. Johnson, 9 ).
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A] district court retains broad discretion over how a case proceeds once it is filed.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
Medical Staff of Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center v. Avera Marshall 836 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Medical Staff of Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center v. Avera Marshall 836 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Out of “respect for coequal branches of government,” we “exercise great restraint in considering the constitutionality of statutes particularly when the consideration involves what is a legislative function and what is a judicial function.”
State v. Lopez 794 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Lopez 794 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Fourth, the comment to rule 15.02 states that “at least some limited inquiry is necessary on the record before a misdemeanor guilty plea is accepted, and [r]ule 15.02 prescribes the minimal standards for this questioning.” , 555 n. 8 (Minn.1994) (recognizing that comments to rules are advisory).
State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(“[T]he prosecutor’s decision whom to prosecute and what charge to file is a discretionary matter which is not subject to judicial review absent ...
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
-58 (Minn.2007) (recognizing that statutes of limitations are "both procedural and substantive in nature,” ).
State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
to argue that impaneling a sentencing jury is a unique judicial function because it is a procedural matter.
State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
we stated: Determination of procedural matters is a judicial function.
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
“[D]ue respect for coequal branches of government requires this court to exercise great restraint in considering the constitutionality of statutes particularly when the consideration involves what is a legislative function and what is a judicial function.”
State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
The supreme court has noted that “[a] statute is procedural when it neither creates a new cause of action nor deprives defendant of any defense on the merits.” (quotation omitted).
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Houx 709 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Houx 709 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(stating that, in matters of procedure rather than substance, the rules control over the statutes in the event of inconsistency).
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
88, 93 (1936); -54 (Minn.1994) (discussing constitutional separation of powers issues).
In Re Olson 648 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2002
In Re Olson 648 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2002
(noting that the courts govern matters of procedure); see also Minn.Stat.
In Re the Welfare of J.S.H.-G. 645 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of J.S.H.-G. 645 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2002