State v. Carroll

How courts have described this case

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

• “We cannot fathom a case where either the state’s 4 attorney or the defendant is not allowed to refer to evidence that has been admitted!” (emphasis in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re the Welfare of D.D.R.
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2006-05-16· cited 9×
• State v. Olsen
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2012-12-17· cited 9×
• State v. Wenthe
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2014-04-07· cited 9×
• State v. Myrland
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2002-06-04· cited 4×
• State v. Cunningham
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2003-06-10· cited 2×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Thiele v. Stich
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1988-07-01· cited 1,003×
• State v. Post
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1994-02-18· cited 131×
• State v. Crims
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1995-11-28· cited 48×
• State v. King
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2001-03-01· cited 37×
• State v. Friend
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1992-12-11· cited 27×
• State v. Kobow
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1991-03-05· cited 18×