Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wildenberg, 573 N.W.2d 692.

23 citing documents.

A23-0754 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“Evidence is material only if there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that disclosure would lead to a different result at trial.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court has “wide discretion in its discovery and evidentiary rulings.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court has “wide discretion in its discovery and ev identiary rulings.”
State v. Williams 908 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2018
State v. Williams 908 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2018
State v. Wildenberg , , 696-98 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Eugene Snoddy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Eugene Snoddy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (quoting United States v. Baglely, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383 (1985)).
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
this request fails in that there’s been no plausible showing that it’s material and favorable to [his] case.” The district court has “wide discretion in its discovery and evidentiary rulings.”
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
24 in contending that the district court erred.
State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. King 622 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2001
State v. Bakken 604 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Bakken 604 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Davis 592 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1999
State v. Davis 592 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1999