Supreme Court of Minnesota· 8/27/1998
State v. Scott
Citations
- 584 N.W.2d 412
- 1998 Minn. LEXIS 551
- 1998 WL 540973
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that suppression of confession would significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution
- holding that suppression of confession would significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution
- recognizing that the traditional taint analysis does not apply to Miranda violations
- recognizing that the traditional taint analysis does not apply to Miranda violations
- explaining that the critical impact of the pretrial order must be first determined before deciding whether the order was error
- recognizing critical impact can be satisfied not only if suppressed evidence destroys prosecution’s case but if likelihood of successful prosecution is significantly reduced
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gilbert, Tomljanovich, Gardebring, Tomlja-Novich
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
46 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. UnderdahlSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2009-04-30· cited 50×
- State v. BarrettSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2005-04-21· cited 49×
- State v. KlamarCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2012-12-10· cited 47×
- State v. BaileySupreme Court of Minnesota· 2004-03-18· cited 45×
- State v. ClarkSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2007-09-13· cited 43×
- State v. HolidayCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2008-06-03· cited 33×
- State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2016-11-30· cited 31×
- State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. HornerSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2000-10-12· cited 29×
- State v. CookCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2000-04-25· cited 25×
- State v. McGrathCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2005-12-06· cited 25×
- State v. McLeodSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2005-11-17· cited 23×
- State v. RuohoCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2004-08-17· cited 22×
- In Re the Welfare of L.E.P.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1999-05-06· cited 22×
- State v. KraskySupreme Court of Minnesota· 2007-08-09· cited 21×
- State v. KraskyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2005-05-24· cited 16×
- State v. RambahalSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2008-06-19· cited 16×
- State v. AubidSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1999-04-08· cited 15×
- State v. LaducerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2004-03-30· cited 9×
- State v. WernerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2007-01-09· cited 6×
- State v. KailCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2009-02-03· cited 6×
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 58,288×
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1963-01-14· cited 12,871×
- Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court· 1980-05-12· cited 5,571×
- Colorado v. ConnellySupreme Court· 1986-12-10· cited 4,016×
- Oregon v. ElstadSupreme Court· 1985-03-04· cited 2,824×
- State v. MerrillSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1978-12-01· cited 321×
- State v. Joon Kyu KimSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1987-01-02· cited 179×
- State v. WebberSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1977-12-05· cited 143×
- State v. ZanterSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1995-08-04· cited 111×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1995-07-14· cited 74×
- In Re the Welfare of S. W. T.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1979-03-16· cited 62×
- State v. OukSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1994-05-13· cited 37×
- State v. EdrozoSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1998-05-14· cited 36×
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1997-07-10· cited 28×
- State v. ChampionSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1995-06-16· cited 23×
- State v. BeckmanSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1984-09-14· cited 19×
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.