Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ciurleo, 471 N.W.2d 119.

38 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Whether a probable-cause dismissal is legal or factual in nature “is a threshold jurisdictional question.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[W]hether the dismissal is based on a legal or a factual determination is a threshol d jurisdictional question.” State v. Ciurleo
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[W]hether the dismissal is based on a legal or a factual determination is a threshold jurisdictional question.”
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The question of “whether the dismissal is based on a legal or a factual determination is a threshold jurisdictional question.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting pretrial dismissal for lack of probable cause based on legal determination, such as interpretation of statute, is appealable by the state, but a factual dismissal is not).
State of Minnesota v. Amy Jessina Janssen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amy Jessina Janssen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellant must make appellate jurisdiction “appear plainly and affirmatively from the record presented.”
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Gerard 832 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Gerard 832 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Mertz 801 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Mertz 801 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Dunson 770 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Dunson 770 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
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. Gabbert 693 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Gabbert 693 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Ortiz 626 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Ortiz 626 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Larkin 620 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Larkin 620 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Linville 598 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Linville 598 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
A dismissal for lack of probable cause is appealable, however, if it “is based on a legal determination, such as the interpretation of a statute.”
State v. Edwards 589 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Edwards 589 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Hendricks 586 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Hendricks 586 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Duffy 559 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Duffy 559 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
11, 1991); (threshold jurisdictional question is whether dismissal was based on legal or factual determination).
State v. Marshall 541 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Marshall 541 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Rasinski 527 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Rasinski 527 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(off-the-record comments by trial judge do not make pretrial probable cause dismissal appealable as based on a legal determination).