Legal Opinion
State v. Tennin
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 12, 2004No. A03-1281PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BLATZ, Chief Justice.
We are asked to determine whether the State of Minnesota’s imposition of a co-payment obligation on individuals who receive public defender services, in the manner prescribed by Minn.Stat. § 611.17, subd. 1(c) (Supp.2003), is constitutional. The district court declared section 611.17, subdivision 1(c) (Supp.2003), unconstitutional, enjoined further collection of co-payments, and certified the question to the court of appeals pursuant to Minn. R.Crim. P. 28.03. We granted accelerated review.
On August 26, 2003, respondent Shaw-natee Marie Tennin was charged with…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Fuller v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- State v. MerrillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- State v. ColvinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- State v. GrossmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- State v. LariveeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. DudleySupreme Court of Iowa · 2009
- State v. CaulfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- State v. AllenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- State v. PalubickiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.