Hoagland v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an eight-year delay in filing for postconviction relief did not constitute an abuse of the judicial process
• “[A] convicted defendant is entitled to at least one right of review by an appellate or postcon-viction court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Opsahl v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2004-04-08· cited 130×
• State v. Osborne
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2006-06-08· cited 75×
• State v. Wukawitz
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2003-05-29· cited 67×
• Butala v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2003-07-03· cited 67×
• State v. Lindsey
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2001-08-23· cited 66×
• Carlton v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2012-07-18· cited 60×
• James v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2005-07-07· cited 41×
• State v. Jumping Eagle
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2000-12-28· cited 41×
• State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2016-02-17· cited 36×
• State v. Entzi
  North Dakota Supreme Court· 2000-07-24· cited 35×
• Spann v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2005-10-06· cited 26×
• State v. Romero
  North Dakota Supreme Court· 2013-05-14· cited 16×
• State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2016-03-02· cited 9×
• McMaster v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1996-07-03· cited 8×
• State v. Williams
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2014-02-05· cited 7×
• State v. Williams
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2003-07-11· cited 6×
• Spann v. State
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2004-09-28· cited 3×
• Ennen v. State
  North Dakota Supreme Court· 2013-05-14· cited 1×
• State v. Carr
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2005-02-15· cited 1×
• Hoagland v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1995-11-02