Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McKown, 475 N.W.2d 63.

44 citing documents.

In re the Matter of: Nezha Boutlane, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the criminal context, there is a “long-established rule that a government may not officially inform an individual that certain conduct is permitted and then prosecute the individual for engaging in that same conduct.”
J. Paul Robinson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Entrapment by estoppel is a “l ong-established rule that a gover nment may not officially inform an individual that certain conduct is permitt e d a n d t h e n p r o s e c u t e t h e individual for engaging in that same conduct.” State v. McKown
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Shane 883 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Shane 883 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
21, 1995); (noting “the long-established rule that a government may not officially inform an individual that certain conduct is permitted and then prosecute the individual for engaging in that same conduct”); (recognizing that Minnesota courts follow the
State of Minnesota v. Doua Chang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Doua Chang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] government may not officially inform an individual that certain conduct is permitted and then prosecute the individual for engaging in that same conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Christian Phillip Oberender Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christian Phillip Oberender Minn. Ct. App. 2014
10 The district court dismissed the felony charge under a theory of “entrapment by estoppel.” Entrapment by estoppel, or government estoppel, is a “long-established rule that a government may not officially inform an individual that certain conduct is permitted and then prosecute the individual for engaging in that same conduct.”
Minch v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed District 723 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Minch v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed District 723 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See Hagen v. Martin County, 253 Minn. 367, 371 , (concluding that the various chapters of the Minnesota Water Law should be construed together); (“Statutes in pari materia are those relating to the same person or thing or having a common purpose.”).
Heine v. Simon 702 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2005
Heine v. Simon 702 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2005
Hutchinson Technology, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 698 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2005
Hutchinson Technology, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 698 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2005
Whitten v. State 690 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Whitten v. State 690 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
We further note that this state follows “the long-established rule that a government may not officially inform an individual that certain conduct is permitted and then prosecute the individual for engaging in that same conduct.”
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(concluding that state had previously approved certain conduct and then unconstitutionally prosecuted defendants for the same conduct), aff'd, cert.
Gilder v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 659 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Gilder v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 659 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Akers 636 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Akers 636 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
*844 (government may not inform an “individual that certain conduct is permitted and then prosecute the individual for engaging in that same conduct”).
State v. Herbert 601 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Herbert 601 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Lucas 589 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 1999
State v. Lucas 589 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 1999
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
515, 522 , 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971)), aff'd
State v. Orsello 554 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1996
State v. Orsello 554 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1996
1056, 1059 , 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971); aff'd cert.
Haveri v. Commissioner of Public Safety 552 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Haveri v. Commissioner of Public Safety 552 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The district court dismissed the indictments, however, aff'd, ce rt.
State v. McCuiston 514 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. McCuiston 514 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(statutes which are in pari materia should be construed together), cert.
State v. Wetsch 511 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Wetsch 511 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Niska 499 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Niska 499 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 497 N.W.2d 250 Minn. 1993
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 497 N.W.2d 250 Minn. 1993
Although consideration of legislative history is improper, cert.
Baker v. Baker 481 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Baker v. Baker 481 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(quoting Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, and citing Doe v. Minnesota State Bd.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by