Gassler v. State
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1ConcurrenceGildea, Chief Justice
I agree with the majority that Gassler’s petition for postconviction relief is time barred under Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2008). And I join Part I of the majority opinion, in which the majority concludes that Gassier is not entitled to have his petition for postconviction relief considered under the newly discovered evidence exception to the statutory time bar. But I disagree with the majority insofar as it concludes that the postconviction court should have also considered whether Gas-sler’s petition met the interests of justice exception in section 590.01, subdivision 4. In my view,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Amaral v. Saint Cloud HospitalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- Evelyn Cotto and Edwin Torres, Etc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Wesco Products Co. And Donald Horwitz v. Alloy Automotive Co., and Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
- Sommers v. ThomasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.