State v. Waukazo

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that the district court acted within its discretion in admitting relationship evidence to “illuminate” the relationship and place crime in the “proper context”
• determining court acted within its discretion in 5 admitting relationship evidence to “illuminate” the relationship and place the charged assault in the “proper context”
• discussing with approval the admission of relevant evidence “to illuminate [the] relationship [between defendant and victim] and place the incident with which [defendant] was charged in proper context”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Elvin
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1992-03-03· cited 15×
• State v. Ostlund
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1987-12-15· cited 14×
• State v. Currie
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1987-02-10· cited 13×
• State v. Cichon
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1990-08-14· cited 9×
• State v. Folkers
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1997-07-10· cited 2×
• State v. Hatton
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1986-11-10· cited 2×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Spreigl
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1965-12-17· cited 368×
• State v. Parker
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1984-08-03· cited 87×
• State v. Filippi
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1983-07-01· cited 78×
• State v. Darveaux
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1982-04-16· cited 44×
• State v. Langley
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1984-08-17· cited 43×
• State v. Volstad
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1980-01-11· cited 28×
• State v. Combs
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1972-02-18· cited 24×
• State v. Kumpula
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1984-09-21· cited 13×