Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Montanaro, 463 N.W.2d 281.

26 citing documents.

Original Jurisdiction Per Curiam Minn. 2022
In re 15 Matson, (declining to consider any mitigating circumstances because the attorney did not file an answer to the petition); (“[R]espondent’s failure to answer the petition with any mitigating circumstances bars our consideration of such issues.”).
In re Disciplinary Action Against Saltzstein 896 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2017
See Matson, d at 25 (declining to consider mitigating factors an attorney attempted to raise for the first time in a brief to this court because he did not include them in his answer to the petition for disciplinary action, and stating that “[t]he time for raising defenses under the rules is in the answer”); see also In re *873 Schulte
In re Disciplinary Action Against Fahrenholtz 896 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2017
See, 265 (Minn. 1997) (disbarring an attorney for repeatedly neglecting client matters, among other misconduct); (order); -84 (Minn. 1990); (same).
In RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Jesse David MATSON, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0389131 889 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2017
12 See, e.g., Schulte, d at 679 (rejecting the attorney’s request to consider remorse and depression as mitigating factors “[b]ecause he failed to answer the disciplinary petition, [and] there are no factual findings in the record regarding any potential mitigation”); (“[T]his court is not an original factfinding body in attorney discipline matters, and respondent’s failure to answer the petition with any mitigating circumstances bars our consideration of such issues.”).
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Jeffrey H. OLSON, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0082004 872 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 2015
duplicate expense-reimbursement reports to her employer); (order) (disbarring attorney who misappropriated $92,450 he received on behalf of a limited partnership); -84 (Minn. 1992) (disbarring attorney who misappropriated $200,000 he was given to hold in connection with a contemplated business venture); -84 (Minn. 1990) (disbarring attorney who misappropriated both client funds and $14,000 from a partnership and stating "[d]isbarment is further warranted by respondent's misappropriation of the $
In Re PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Frank Arend SCHULTE, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 244934 869 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2015
(stating that we are “not an original factfinding body in attorney discipline matters” and an attorney’s “failure to answer the petition with any mitigating circumstances bars our consideration of such issues”).
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
See Lynch, d at 79-80 ; (requiring pre-trial dismissal of the indictment when “[a] reading of the Grand Jury transcript reveal[ed] that the prosecution improperly left the Grand Jury with a mistaken impression as to defendant’s post-shooting conduct and statements and thereby with an arguably false impression of defendant’s
State v. Martin 823 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Martin 823 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re Disciplinary Action Against Wolff 810 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2012
265 (Minn.1997) (disbarring an attorney, in part, for repeated neglect of client matters); (disbarring an attorney for engaging in repeated and continued neglect of client matters, misappropriating client funds, and failing to cooperate with the Director’s investigation); -84 (Minn.1990) (disbarring an attorney, in part, for a serious pattern of client neglect).
In re Disciplinary Action Against Rymanowski 809 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 2012
15 See, eg., (holding that because our court is not a fact-finding body, "respondent's failure to answer the petition with any mitigating cireumstances bars our consideration of such issues").
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
We have also explained that an indictment should be dismissed if the State “knowingly committed misconduct in the presenta *732 tion of evidence” and either the misconduct substantially influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict or “the court is left with grave doubt that the decision to indict was free of any influence of the misconduct.” (order).
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Swensen 743 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2008
An attorney’s “failure to answer the petition with any mitigating circumstances bars our consideration of such issues.”
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
-05 (Minn.1989) (stating that a prosecutor’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to the grand jury will require dismissal of the indictment if the evidence would have materially affected the grand jury proceeding).
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Dovolis 572 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1998
(disbarring attorney for misappropriation, repeated and continued neglect of client matters, and noncooperation); (disbarring attorney for cumulative weight of misconduct consisting of misappropriation, trust account violations, client neglect, noncommunication, and noncooperation).
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Grzybek 567 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1997
s, disobeyed court order, neglected client matters, and failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation); (concluding that disbarment is warranted for lawyer who, over a period of years, engaged in repeated and continued neglect of client matters, misappropriated client funds, and failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation); -84 (Minn.1990) (ordering disbarment for misappropriating client and partnership funds, neglecting client matters, and failing to cooperate with the Directo
State v. Martin 567 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Harp 560 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1997
ment for repeated and continued neglect of client matters, misappropriation and noneooperation); (disbarring attorney with significant disciplinary history for failure to pay attorney registration fees, client neglect and noncommunication, failure to return client files or to refund unearned retainers, improper communication, and incompetence); (disbarring attorney for cumulative weight of misconduct consisting of misappropriation and trust account violations, client neglect and noncommunication
Petition for Discipl. Act. Against Weems 540 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1995
See, (concluding that disbarment is warranted for attorney who, over a period of years, engaged in repeated and continued neglect of client matters, misappropriated client funds, and failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation); (ordering disbarment for misappropriating client and partnership funds, neglecting legal matters, and failing to cooperate with the Director).
State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991