State of Minnesota v. Jaimiah Lamar Irby
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, Justice.
Appellant Jaimiah Lamar Irby argues that he is entitled to a new trial because we found that the judge who presided over his conviction and sentencing, the Honorable Patricia Kerr Karasov, failed to reside in her judicial district from July 1, 2009, to September 30, 2009. Although this period of absence concluded before Irby’s trial began, Irby contends that Judge Karasov automatically forfeited her office under Minn.Stat. § 351.02(4) (2012) when she moved outside her district, and that she therefore lacked the authority to hear his case. Because we conclude that a…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Clark v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Commissioners of EmigrationSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLCSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- ILHC OF EAGAN, LLC v. County of DakotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- In re Clerk of Lyon County Courts' CompensationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne RiggsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
- Vanterpool v. Government of the Virgin IslandsSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Timothy John BakkenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- Laymon v. Minnesota Premier Properties, LLCCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. DaytonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.