Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McKenzie v. State, 583 N.W.2d 744.

144 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Allison Ann Mastin Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Lee Ray Bolch v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See McKenzie v. State , d 744, 746 n.1 (Minn. 1998) (declining to address an argument to which appellant “allude[d ]” but failed to adequately discuss); State, Dep’t of Labor & Indus.
State of Minnesota v. Andre Joseph Shafer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Maria Rothen v. Jason David Rothen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When reviewing a claim that a judge was partial against a party, we presume the judge “discharged his or her judicial duties properly.” ().
In re the Marriage of: Esther Jayasheela Potti v. Dasyam Samuel Rajasekhar Minn. Ct. App. 2020
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., n.1 (Minn. 1998) (deeming claims waived because appellant “allude[d] to” issues but “fail[ed] to address them in the argument portion of his brief”).
State of Minnesota v. Lindsey Damien Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Allen Crotty Minn. Ct. App. 2020
5, 1997); n.1 (Minn. 1998) (applying rule that issues not briefed on appeal are waived in a case where an appellant “allude[d] to” issues but “fail[ed] to address them in the argument portion of his brief”).
John Koppi v. Robin Marsh, XYZ Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
McKenzie v. State , d 744, 746 n.1 (Minn. 1998) (stating that arguments inadequately briefed are waived where the appellant alludes to issues but “fails to address them in the argument portion of his brief”); -65 (Minn. 1944) (“[O]n appeal error is never presumed.
State of Minnesota v. Trejuan Dominic Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2020
For a judge to be impartial, she must possess “no actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome of his particular case.” (quoting McKenzie v. State , ).
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Fredin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
Impartiality req uires absence of “ ‘actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome of his particular 9 case.’ ” State v. Munt , (quoting McKenzie v. State , ).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Allen Lipe Minn. Ct. App. 2020
n.1 (Minn. 1998) (an issue that is not argued in a brief is deemed waived on appeal).
Town of West Lakeland v. Karl E. Auleciems, Susanne M. Auleciems, Ethan Auleciems, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
n.1 (Minn. 1998) (declining to consider issues raised in a brief when the appellant alluded to them but failed to “address them in the argument portion of his brief”).
Hayley Elizabeth Kytta v. Corey Strecker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See McKenzie v. State , n.1 (Minn. 1998) (applying the rule that arguments not briefed are waived in an appeal in which the appellant “allude[d] to” an issue but “fail[ed] to address [it] in the argument portion of his brief”).
In re the Marriage of: Terrence Michael Zelenka v. Annie Valeria Anderson, f/k/a Anne Zelenka Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See McKenzie v. State , n.1 (Minn. 1998) (arguments not briefed are waived in an appeal in which the appellant “alludes to” an issue but “fails to address them in the argument portion of [her] brief”).
State of Minnesota v. Chris Marquis McMorris Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Theodore Pierre Jerry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When reviewing a claim that a judge was partial against the defendant, we presume the judge ‘discharged his or her judicial duties properly.’” ().
State v. Mouelle 922 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2019
State v. Mouelle 922 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2019
State v. Munt , , 580 (Minn. 2013) (quoting McKenzie v. State , , 747 (Minn. 1998) ).
Thomas A. Ruether, et al v. Kathleen Mimbach Living Trust, et al., City of Rockville Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See McKenzie v. State , n.1 (Minn. 1998) (applying the rule that arguments not briefed are forfeited in an appeal in which the appellant “allude[d] to” an issue but “fail[ed] to address them in the argument portion of his brief”).
Louis Ambrose v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re A.J.B. 910 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re A.J.B. 910 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See McKenzie v. State , , 746 n.1 (Minn. 1998) (declining to address issues that the appellant alluded to but failed to address in the argument portion of his brief).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald James Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See McKenzie v. State , n.1 (Minn .
State of Minnesota v. Roger Edward Naghash Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (declining to hear an issue not raised in district court); n.1 (Minn. 1998) (stating that issues not argued in briefs are waived).
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Marie Fostvedt Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: David Scott Pederson v. Elizabeth Joan Nephew Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Arlen Dean Silberg Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 744, 746 n.1 (Minn. 1998) (“[I]ssues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Starnes Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kristin M. Schumacher, Marian V. Swanson, intervenor v. Terrence K. Swanson, and Terrence K. Swanson, counterclaimant, vs. Kristin … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
n.1 (Minn. 1998) (indicating that when an appellant “alludes to” an issue but “fails to address [it] in the argument portion of his brief” we need not address it).
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Moreover, while Griffin had the right to have his case heard before a judge who had “no actual bias against [him] or interest in the outcome of his particular case,” (quotation omitted), 8 Griffin cannot claim bias because the judge who Karkoska consulted with had no part in the subsequent hearing on Griffin’s motion to suppress or in his trial.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.1 (Minn. 1998) (noting that issues not briefed on appeal are waived).
Kenneth S. Benigni v. St. Louis County, State of Minnesota, by Department of Human Services, Lake Superior Community … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kenneth S. Benigni v. St. Louis County, State of Minnesota, by Department of Human Services, Lake Superior Community … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S.M.M., D.M.P. and W.A.W., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S.M.M., D.M.P. and W.A.W., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.1 (Minn. 1998); State, Dep’t of Labor & Indus.
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.1 (Minn. 1998) (applying the rule that arguments not briefed are not addressed in a case where the appellant “allude[d] to” an issue but “fail[ed] to address [the issue] in the argument portion of his brief”).
State of Minnesota v. David Paul Patterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Paul Patterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
5, 1997); n.1 (Minn. 1998) (applying the rule that arguments not briefed are waived when appellant alluded to issues but “fail[ed] to address them in the argument portion of his brief”).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.1 (Minn. 1998) (applying the rule that arguments not briefed are forfeited in a case where appellant “allude[d] to” an issue but “fail[ed] to address [it] in the argument portion of his brief”).
State of Minnesota v. Kabba Kangbateh 868 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kabba Kangbateh 868 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 2015
(“When reviewing a claim that a judge was partial against the defendant, we presume the judge ‘discharged his or her judicial duties properly.’”) ().
Ahmadani Hassan Mohamed v. Eric Elijah Aaron Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmadani Hassan Mohamed v. Eric Elijah Aaron Minn. Ct. App. 2015