DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218.

363 citing documents.

  • State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (reviewing suppression of evidence).
  • State v. Lembke 509 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Lembke 509 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    *184 In reviewing pretrial suppression rulings where the facts are not in dispute, this court “may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”
  • State v. Wold 506 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Wold 506 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    In reviewing pretrial suppression rulings where the facts are not in dispute, this court “may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”
  • State v. Schauer 501 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Schauer 501 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Negaard v. Commissioner of Public Safety 500 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Negaard v. Commissioner of Public Safety 500 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Darnall 498 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Darnall 498 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    In a case where the district court’s judgment is based on undisputed facts, however, this court may review the district court’s judgment as a legal question and “may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”
  • State v. Hickman 491 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Hickman 491 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    ANALYSIS This court, when reviewing a pretrial suppression order where facts are not in dispute, “may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”