Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Salazargreen1 sentence2016In child-abuse cases, statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment “are admissible . . . if the evidence suggests that the child knew she was speaking to medical personnel and that it was important she tell the truth.” State v. 7 Salazar, 504 N.W.2d 774, 777 (Minn. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2016Evid. 803(4) provides that the following statements are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even if the declarant is available as a witness: “Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.” “The rationale behind the rule is the patient’s belief that accuracy is essential to effective treatment.” State v. Robinson, 718 N.W.2d 400, 404 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted | 1 | 1 |
Dale Properties, LLC v. Stategreen1 sentence2014The supreme court has explained the rationale behind this rule as follows: (1) “the construction of highway medians constitutes an exercise of police power in furtherance of the state’s duty to ensure public safety on the roadways”; (2) “the restrictions on travel that result from the use of highway medians affect all members of the traveling public and are not unique to abutting property owners”; (3) a property owner with access to an abutting highway in at least one direction 5 still retains access to that highway in an opposite direction, albeit through an alternative route; and (4) courts | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.
green
2 sentences2017Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 221-22 , 73 S.Ct. 227 , 97 L.Ed. 260 (1952) (describing the rationale behind the rule of lenity by saying, “when choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite”). 2017Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 221-22 , 73 S.Ct. 227 , 97 L.Ed. 260 (1952) (describing the rationale behind the rule of lenity by saying, “when choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite”). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Cornfeldt v. Tongen
green
1 sentence1987Id. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Building Industries, Inc. v. Wright Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences1956Schundler Feldspar Co. Inc. 70 S. D. 513, 515, 19 N. W. (2d) 337, 338 , as follows: “* * * The obvious reason for the rule is that a corporation is purely a creature of statute and that it is for the Legislature to determine the means of its dissolution.” 8 Building Industries, Inc. v. Wright Products, Inc. 240 Minn. 473 , 62 N. W. (2d) 208 . 9 See 16 Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations (Perm, ed.) § 7967, discussing de facto dissolution. 10 See, e. g., Jones v. Fox Film Corp. (5 Cir.) 68 F. (2d) 116; Simms v. Bialy Hdwe. & Supply Co. 187 Mich. 375 , 153 N. W. 821 ; 16 Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corpo 1956Schundler Feldspar Co. Inc. 70 S. D. 513, 515, 19 N. W. (2d) 337, 338 , as follows: “* * * The obvious reason for the rule is that a corporation is purely a creature of statute and that it is for the Legislature to determine the means of its dissolution.” 8 Building Industries, Inc. v. Wright Products, Inc. 240 Minn. 473 , 62 N. W. (2d) 208 . 9 See 16 Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations (Perm, ed.) § 7967, discussing de facto dissolution. 10 See, e. g., Jones v. Fox Film Corp. (5 Cir.) 68 F. (2d) 116; Simms v. Bialy Hdwe. & Supply Co. 187 Mich. 375 , 153 N. W. 821 ; 16 Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corpo | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Simms v. Bialy Hardware & Supply Co.
neutral
2 sentences1956Schundler Feldspar Co. Inc. 70 S. D. 513, 515, 19 N. W. (2d) 337, 338 , as follows: “* * * The obvious reason for the rule is that a corporation is purely a creature of statute and that it is for the Legislature to determine the means of its dissolution.” 8 Building Industries, Inc. v. Wright Products, Inc. 240 Minn. 473 , 62 N. W. (2d) 208 . 9 See 16 Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations (Perm, ed.) § 7967, discussing de facto dissolution. 10 See, e. g., Jones v. Fox Film Corp. (5 Cir.) 68 F. (2d) 116; Simms v. Bialy Hdwe. & Supply Co. 187 Mich. 375 , 153 N. W. 821 ; 16 Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corpo 1956Schundler Feldspar Co. Inc. 70 S. D. 513, 515, 19 N. W. (2d) 337, 338 , as follows: “* * * The obvious reason for the rule is that a corporation is purely a creature of statute and that it is for the Legislature to determine the means of its dissolution.” 8 Building Industries, Inc. v. Wright Products, Inc. 240 Minn. 473 , 62 N. W. (2d) 208 . 9 See 16 Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations (Perm, ed.) § 7967, discussing de facto dissolution. 10 See, e. g., Jones v. Fox Film Corp. (5 Cir.) 68 F. (2d) 116; Simms v. Bialy Hdwe. & Supply Co. 187 Mich. 375 , 153 N. W. 821 ; 16 Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corpo | 1 | 1956–1956 |
In Re Schundler Feldspar Co., Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1956Schundler Feldspar Co. Inc. 70 S. D. 513, 515, 19 N. W. (2d) 337, 338 , as follows: “* * * The obvious reason for the rule is that a corporation is purely a creature of statute and that it is for the Legislature to determine the means of its dissolution.” 8 Building Industries, Inc. v. Wright Products, Inc. 240 Minn. 473 , 62 N. W. (2d) 208 . 9 See 16 Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations (Perm, ed.) § 7967, discussing de facto dissolution. 10 See, e. g., Jones v. Fox Film Corp. (5 Cir.) 68 F. (2d) 116; Simms v. Bialy Hdwe. & Supply Co. 187 Mich. 375 , 153 N. W. 821 ; 16 Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corpo | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.