Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Case v. State

344 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Case v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Case v. State

    364 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. 1985)   Cited 128 times
    Holding that to qualify for the first Knaffla exception, a claim must be "so novel that it can be said that its legal basis was not reasonably available to counsel at the time the direct appeal was taken and decided"

    The court of appeals therefore did not address the trial court's findings on their merits. See Case v. State, 344 N.W.2d 888, 889 (Minn.App. 1984). The petitioner is now on parole.

  2. Case v. State

    355 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 1984)

    Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Raymond Arthur Case, Jr. for further review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, 344 N.W.2d 888, be, and the same is, granted. Briefs shall be filed in the quantity, form and within the time limitations contained in Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 131 and 132. Counsel will be notified at a later date of the time for argument before this court.

  3. State v. Stutelberg

    435 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 52 times
    Holding motion under Minn.R.Crim.P. 27.03, subd. 9, can be considered a "post-conviction proceeding"

    This court affirmed the trial court on procedural grounds and did not reach the merits of Case's arguments. See Case v. State, 344 N.W.2d 888, 889 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed this court, noting that:

  4. State v. Andren

    350 N.W.2d 404 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 9 times
    Stating that it is a "well-settled rule that a defendant is not entitled to raise issues already decided on appeal"

    1983); State v. Myers, 273 N.W.2d 656, 657 (Minn. 1978); State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976); Case v. State, 344 N.W.2d 888 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). The durational issue has already been decided (in appellant's favor) and is now moot.