Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Brown, 348 N.W.2d 743.

76 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Roy 928 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2019
State v. Roy 928 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2019
Linehan v. Wood , , 342 (Minn. 1986) ; State v. Willis , , 428-29 (Minn. 1985) ; State v. Brown , , 748 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
abrogated on other grounds by State v. Ramey , 9 (Minn. 2006).
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Armando Jesus Pedraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Armando Jesus Pedraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(d 743, 748 (Minn. 1984), ).
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
(discussing plain error in the context of analyzing unob-jected-to prosecutorial misconduct), (applying Caron standard, using failure to object as a factor, and finding that the error was harmless).
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Swanson, 307 Minn. 412, 422 , (“[Carefully worded instructions by the trial court can ameliorate the effect of improper pros-ecutorial argument.”)
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
(applying Caron standard, using failure to object as a factor, and finding that the error was harmless), (discussing “plain error” in the context of analyzing unobjected-to prose-cutorial misconduct), (Minn.1
State v. Hadgu 681 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hadgu 681 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
Flynn v. American Home Products Corp. 627 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Flynn v. American Home Products Corp. 627 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Ass’n, (explaining the requirements for review of issue not addressed in district court); Pikop v. Burlington N. R., 390 * (preemption is a matter of statutory construction that appellate courts review de novo).
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Sewell 595 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Sewell 595 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
State v. Washington 521 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1994
State v. Washington 521 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1994
State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
(time spent in out-of-state custody in connection with Minnesota *766 charges entitles defendant to credit for that time).
State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
State v. Akbar 419 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Akbar 419 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(remand for determination whether part of the jail time in jail awaiting Minnesota extradition was spent in connection with an offense in custodial state).
State v. Parr 414 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Parr 414 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(no jail credit for time spent in prison in another state before being paroled to and jailed in Minnesota for trial on Minnesota charges).
Laughnan v. State 404 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Laughnan v. State 404 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See, State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127
State Ex Rel. Linehan v. Wood 397 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1986
State Ex Rel. Linehan v. Wood 397 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1986
The trial court denied the petition
State ex rel. Linehan v. Wood 394 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Scott v. State 390 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Scott v. State 390 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Willis 376 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1985