Staunton v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he failure to acknowledge a particular sentencing circumstance does not necessarily mean it was not considered.”
• “We do not believe . . . [the court] is required to specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged by a defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2015-07-22· cited 12×
• Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2015-03-11· cited 11×
• State of Iowa v. Stephen Robert Bloomer
  Court of Appeals of Iowa· 2016-11-09
• In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Michael Benson
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2024-10-23

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Brady v. Maryland
  Supreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
• State v. Knaffla
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1976-06-25· cited 418×
• Riley v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2012-08-15· cited 183×
• United States v. Leroy S. Outen Rodney D. Smith Sheldon Wilford Donald Gordon Euton Christian Tyrone McFadden Herbie Noel, AKA \Wayne\
  Second Circuit· 2002-04-12· cited 151×
• Jackery B. White v. Robert Klitzkie
  Ninth Circuit· 2002-02-20· cited 109×
• Lussier v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2012-10-10· cited 73×
• Deegan v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2006-03-23· cited 71×
• Davis v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2010-07-15· cited 32×
• Doppler v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2009-09-10· cited 26×
• Staunton v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2010-06-30· cited 16×
• Wallace v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2012-09-26· cited 14×
• State v. Tanksley
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2012-02-08· cited 5×