skip to content
Primary navigation

Search Site

Search Opinions

Browse Opinions by Date

Special-Term Orders

About Content
This archive includes orders decided by the Court of Appeals at its Special-Term Session, the weekly calendar where a panel of three Court of Appeals judges considers jurisdictional and procedural matters. This archive does not include orders before January 1, 2023 or orders that were not decided at Special Term. Orders not included in this archive may be accessed via the Minnesota Appellate Courts’ public access system, PMACS.

Search Briefs

Search Articles

Help with searching

Results 1 - 10 of 46
A conservation officer approaching an open boat while it rests on the trailer of a parked portage truck and asking the occupants whether they had caught any fish is not a seizure for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
Date: September 25, 2003
In Minnesota’s game and fish laws, the definition of "taking" in Minn. Stat. § 97A.015, subd. 47 (2014), applies to "take" in Minn. Stat. § 97B.301, subd. 1 (2014). A jury could reasonably conclude that a person who sat in a camouflaged ATV blind in a field during deer hunting season, wore blaze orange, and had a loaded gun next to him, was "pursuing" or "attempting to take" deer, and therefore violated Minn. Stat. § 97B.301, subd. 1.
Citation: 859 N.W.2d 816
Date: February 25, 2015
reasonable suspicion of a threat to officer safety, which is necessary for an exception to the knock and announce requirement of the Fourth Amendment, exists in this case
Date: August 03, 2000
Minnesota Statutes requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally discharged a firearm under circumstances that endangered the safety of another person, but knowledge of the endangerment is not a required element of proof.
Date: April 01, 1999
1. The plain language of Minnesota Statutes § 634.03 (2020) requires a defendant’s confession to be corroborated by independent evidence reasonably tending to prove that the specific offense charged has been committed. 2. Because the State failed to introduce evidence independent of respondent’s confession that reasonably tended to prove that one specific incident of criminal sexual conduct was committed, respondent cannot be convicted of that specific charge because his confession to it was not sufficiently corroborated. Affirmed.
Citation: 966 N.W.2d 803
Date: November 17, 2021
... he thought it was drugged. During a deer hunting trip, thinking that another member of the hunting party had poisoned his mustache, Schreiber tried to ...
Date: January 16, 1997
Tax court's finding that taxpayer was a Minnesota resident in 1998 and 1999 was justified by the evidence. Tax court's finding that taxpayer failed to prove that fraud penalties were improper was not justified by the evidence. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Date: March 30, 2006
Minnesota's authority to exercise its jurisdiction over civil/regulatory traffic offenses committed on a state highway on an Indian reservation by an Indian who is not an enrolled member of the governing tribe arises from Minnesota's interest in regulating the safe flow of traffic on its state-operated and maintained highways and is not preempted by the federal interest in tribal self-government, self-sufficiency, and economic development.
Date: August 24, 2000
District court did not err when it concluded that a felony burglary conviction that is later deemed a misdemeanor under Minn. Stat. § 609.13, subd. 1(2) (2006), is a "crime of violence" as defined in Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 5 (2006), for the purposes of the firearm prohibition statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b(a) (2006).
Date: June 14, 2007
When months have elapsed between a defendant's invocation of the right to counsel and the defendant's subsequent statements, the defendant was sufficiently “out of custody” to nullify the Edwards invocation under both the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution.
Date: August 10, 2006
back to top