State v. Rodriguez

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a bonding company “assumed the risk” of searching for a defendant in its examination of the third Shetsky factor
• “There is no evidence as to the defendant’s motives for leaving Minnesota, but his absence certainly appears willful.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Paradise v. Eagle Creek Software Services, Inc.
  D. Massachusetts· 2013-09-06· cited 2×

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Nichols v. Shelard National Bank
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1980-07-03· cited 49×
• In re Shetsky
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1953-06-19· cited 49×
• Commercial Associates, Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2006-04-18· cited 35×
• La Grotta v. United States
  Eighth Circuit· 1935-05-06· cited 26×
• Winter v. Skoglund
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1987-04-17· cited 24×
• State v. Storkamp
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2003-02-20· cited 19×
• State v. Tapia
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1991-04-16· cited 18×
• Johnson v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
  North Dakota Supreme Court· 1983-09-29· cited 18×
• United States v. Minnesota Trust Company
  Eighth Circuit· 1995-07-03· cited 15×
• Almor Corp. v. County of Hennepin
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1997-07-17· cited 14×
• North Star Center, Inc. v. Sibley Bowl, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1973-03-16· cited 13×
• Golden Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Super Valu Realty, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1959-07-31· cited 10×
• State v. Due
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1988-08-16· cited 9×
• State v. Vang
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2009-03-31· cited 8×