Cited by

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

142 citing documents.

Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Ronald Plessel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Ronald Plessel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n.1 (Minn. 1998) (explaining that arguments “allude[d] to” in a brief are waived when the party “fail[ed] to address them in the argument portion” of the brief).
State of Minnesota v. James Irving Dale Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. James Irving Dale Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The code defines “impartial” as the “absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties.” 16 “We begin from the presumption that a judge has discharged his or her judicial duties properly.”
In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of Adeline v. Dorosh. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of Adeline v. Dorosh. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court 3 We note that this argument could be considered waived because issues not briefed on appeal are waived, including issues alluded to, but not argued, n.1 (Minn. 1998), and “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority” is waived “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection,” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
3 When reviewing a claim that a judge was partial against the defendant, we presume the judge “discharged his or her judicial duties properly.” (citing Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 905 , 117 S.Ct.
Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
675 n. 3 (Minn.2008); , 746 n. 1 (Minn.1998).
State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
746 n. 1 (Minn. 1998) (indicating that although appellant "allude[d]” to issues, failure to "address them in the argument portion of his brief” constituted waiver); , 193 n. 8 (Minn.1997) ("issues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal”); accord Peterson v. BASF Corp., 71
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
McKenzie v. State 707 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2005
McKenzie v. State 707 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2005
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
The state counters that Dorsey is not entitled to relief, as “the alleged error did not affect [Dorsey’s] substantial rights or the integrity and fairness of the judicial proceeding.” A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a fair trial before a judge who has “no actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome of his particular case.” (quoting Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 905 , 117 S.Ct.
Washington v. State 675 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2004
Washington v. State 675 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2004
State v. Sime 669 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Sime 669 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Olson 648 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2002
In Re Olson 648 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2002
State v. Krosch 642 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2002
State v. Krosch 642 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2002
746 n. 1 (Minn.1998); Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339 , (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on *720 appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).
State v. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
State v. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
n. 1 (Minn.1998) (defendant who “alludefd]” to certain issues in his brief waived those issues by failing to address them in the argument portion of his brief).
Flournoy v. State 583 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1998
Kambon v. State 583 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1998
Kambon v. State 583 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1998
Flournoy v. State 583 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1998