City of New Richland v. VanEngelenburg

543 N.W.2d 634, 1996 Minn. LEXIS 57, 1996 WL 50918
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided February 5, 1996·No. No. C8-95-588·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

Based upon all the flies, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the court of appeals filed October 24, 1995, answering a question certified by the district court as important and doubtful is affirmed. The district court granted VanEn-gelenburg’s motion to dismiss the criminal prosecution on double jeopardy grounds but certified the double jeopardy question to the court of appeals. The court of appeals answered the question in the negative and reversed the order dismissing the prosecution. VanEngelenburg’s double jeopardy argument is answered by our decision in State v. Hanson, 543 N.W.2d 84 (Minn.1996). The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alexander M. Keith Chief Justice

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

City of New Richland v. VanEngelenburg, 543 N.W.2d 634, 1996 Minn. LEXIS 57, 1996 WL 50918 (Mich. 1996).

543 N.W.2d 634 (City of New Richland v. VanEngelenburg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. McClendon
131 Wash. 2d 853 (Washington Supreme Court, 1997)