Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Linville, 598 N.W.2d 1.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Daniel Scott Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Scott Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1(1), provides that a prosecutor may appeal from probable cause dismissal orders only if they are “based on questions of law,” not if they are “premised solely on a factual determination.” d 1, 2 (Minn. App. 1999) (“A dismissal for lack of probable cause is appealable .
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler Minn. Ct. App. 2016
However, a dismissal for lack of probable cause is only appealable “if it is based on a legal determination, such as the interpretation of a statute.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Mertz 801 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Mertz 801 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(reviewing statutory interpretation de novo).
State v. Dunson 770 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Dunson 770 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(reviewing statutory interpretation de novo).
State v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Fleming 724 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Fleming 724 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
ANALYSIS The state may appeal an order dismissing a complaint for lack of probable cause if it is “based on a legal determination, such as the interpretation of a statute.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Estrella 700 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Estrella 700 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Gabbert 693 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Gabbert 693 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Tice 686 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Tice 686 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding that probable-cause dismissal based on statutory interpretation was a legal determination and therefore appealable).
State v. Anderson 654 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Anderson 654 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(reviewing statutory interpretation underlying dismissal for lack of probable cause); (holding that whether a statute has been properly construed is a question of law subject to de novo review).
State v. Stern 653 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Stern 653 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Colosimo 648 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Colosimo 648 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(reviewing dismissal for lack of probable cause); (stating that courts may independently review the facts and determine whether the district court erred by not suppressing evidence).
State v. Palmer 636 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Palmer 636 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Sherbrooke 633 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Sherbrooke 633 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Ortiz 626 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Ortiz 626 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(reviewing a *449 dismissal for lack of probable cause based on statutory interpretation).
State v. Larkin 620 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Larkin 620 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(reviewing de novo dismissal for lack of probable cause based on statutory interpretation).
State v. Nelson 608 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Nelson 608 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2000