State v. Laughlin

How courts have described this case

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

• “Prohibition is the appropriate remedy to pursue when a motion or notice to remove for cause has been denied.” (citing State v. 3 Poole, 472 N.W.2d 195, 196-97 (Minn. App. 1991)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Powell v. Anderson
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2003-04-17· cited 46×
• Hooper v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2004-05-27· cited 27×
• State v. Jacobs
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2011-09-14· cited 25×
• State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2015-07-08· cited 24×
• State Ex Rel. Guth v. Fabian
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2006-06-13· cited 13×
• Roatch v. Puera
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1995-07-25· cited 5×
• State v. Jacobs
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2010-11-24· cited 3×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Marriage of McClelland v. McClelland
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1984-11-30· cited 47×
• People v. Houston
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 1989-08-22· cited 18×
• Nachtsheim v. Wartnick
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1987-09-08· cited 12×
• Shreve v. Department of Economic Security
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1979-07-27· cited 12×
• Marriage of Schack v. Schack
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1984-09-18· cited 7×
• State v. Yeager
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1987-01-27· cited 6×
• State v. Poole
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1991-07-16· cited 6×