Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 6/26/1984
State v. Case
Citations
- 350 N.W.2d 473
- 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3257
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that even though “[t]his court may have acted otherwise had it been sitting as a sentencing court,” “we are loath to interfere in the absence of an abuse of the discretion granted in departing dispositionally from the guidelines”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Huspeni, Nierengar-Ten, Nierengarten, Wozniak
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. PryorWashington Supreme Court· 1990-10-25· cited 117×
- State v. O'HAGANCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 1991-08-27· cited 26×
- State v. SejnohaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 1994-03-01· cited 13×
- State v. DokkenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 1992-08-18· cited 11×
- State v. LawCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2000-11-15· cited 9×
- State v. O'BRIENCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 1985-04-02· cited 4×
- State v. BendzulaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2004-03-16· cited 3×
- State v. HemmingsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 1985-01-15· cited 3×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. TrogSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1982-08-17· cited 160×
- State v. WrightSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1981-09-22· cited 37×
- State v. HagenSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1982-03-26· cited 28×
- Jackson v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1983-01-28· cited 15×
- State v. ChaseCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 1984-02-01· cited 14×
- State v. LoveSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1984-06-15· cited 13×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.