Cited by

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

108 citing documents.

State v. Christopherson 644 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Christopherson 644 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
See, -54 (Minn.1994) (stating that "[djetermi-nation of procedural matters is a judicial function.”); .(noting that the court has inherent authority to establish the rules of evidence); , 46 n. 3 (Minn. 1990) (opposing the lower co
Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
State v. Pearson 633 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See State v. *85 Johnson, -54 (Minn. 1994) (stating that legislature has no constitutional authority to reserve a right to modify or enact statutes that will govern over court rules of procedure already in place) (citing Maynard E. Pirsig & Randall M. Tietjen, Court Procedure and the Separation of Powers in Minnesota, 15 Wm.
State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
“[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. Weltzin 630 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 2001
State v. Weltzin 630 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 2001
(“The process of certification as a petty misdemeanor under section 609.131 did not change any elements of the substantive offense or create a new class of offense.”).
State v. Cheng 623 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2001
State v. Cheng 623 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2001
State v. Azure 621 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2001
State v. Azure 621 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2001
(noting that the courts govern procedural subjects and the legislature governs substantive rights).
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Minnesota Constitution removed the constitutional requirement that pleadings and proceedings be under the direction of the legislative body, under the separation of powers doctrine the legislature “has no constitutional authority in their enabling acts or otherwise to reserve a right to modify or enact statutes, that will govern over court rules [of procedure] already in place.” (quoting Maynard E. Pirsig & Randall M. Tietjen, Court Procedure and the Separation of Powers in Minnesota, 15 Wm.
State v. Weltzin 618 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Weltzin 618 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State, City of Maple Grove v. Breuhl 615 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State, City of Maple Grove v. Breuhl 615 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Anderson v. Rengachary 608 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2000
State v. Ronquist 600 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1999
State v. Ronquist 600 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1999
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
State v. Windish 590 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1999
State v. Pero 590 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1999
State v. Pero 590 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1999
State v. Windish 590 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1999
State v. Nerz 587 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 1998
State v. Nerz 587 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 1998
State v. Ronquist 578 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Ronquist 578 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
KENNECOTT HOLDINGS v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 578 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1998
KENNECOTT HOLDINGS v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 578 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1998
[7] Although we have recognized that statutes of limitation have both substantive and procedural aspects, we have consistently regarded statutes of limitation as primarily procedural laws.
State v. Bragg 577 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Bragg 577 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In re the Welfare of L.G.S. 568 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In re the Welfare of L.G.S. 568 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
555 n. 8 (Minn.1994) (comments to rules exist to guide court, not to bind it).
Stoebe v. Merastar Insurance Co. 554 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1996
Stoebe v. Merastar Insurance Co. 554 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1996
(holding that conflict between a rule of criminal procedure and a statute was a question of law subject to de novo review).
Smigla v. Schnell 547 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Smigla v. Schnell 547 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(conflict between statute and rule of civil procedure is question of law subject to de novo review); (construction of rule of juvenile procedure is question of law reviewed de novo), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Stoebe v. Merastar Insurance Co. 541 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Stoebe v. Merastar Insurance Co. 541 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of L.J.S. 539 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re the Welfare of L.J.S. 539 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(prosecutor has broad authority to determine whom to prosecute and what charges to bring).