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.
11 Minnesota opinions name it 1 courts 1901–1997 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. Robinsongreen1 sentence1997State v. Robinson, 427 N.W.2d 217, 223 (Minn.1988). 5 In the present case, Juarez’ statement arguably is subject to construction that he was requesting counsel. | 1 | 1 |
Nagaraja v. Commissioner of Revenuegreen1 sentence1988Nagaraja v. Comm’r of Revenue, 352 N.W.2d 373, 376 (Minn.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lusk v. Belote
green
1 sentence1946This court has adopted that rule (Lusk v. Belote, 22 Minn. 468 ; Ross v. Mellin, 36 Minn. 421 , 32 N. W. 172 ; Johnson v. Chadbourn Finance Co. 89 Minn. 310 , 94 N. W. 874 , 99 A. S. R. 571; Knutson v. Fidelity Mut. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Ross v. Mellin
neutral
2 sentences1946This court has adopted that rule (Lusk v. Belote, 22 Minn. 468 ; Ross v. Mellin, 36 Minn. 421 , 32 N. W. 172 ; Johnson v. Chadbourn Finance Co. 89 Minn. 310 , 94 N. W. 874 , 99 A. S. R. 571; Knutson v. Fidelity Mut. 1946This court has adopted that rule (Lusk v. Belote, 22 Minn. 468 ; Ross v. Mellin, 36 Minn. 421 , 32 N. W. 172 ; Johnson v. Chadbourn Finance Co. 89 Minn. 310 , 94 N. W. 874 , 99 A. S. R. 571; Knutson v. Fidelity Mut. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Johnson v. Chadbourn Finance Co.
neutral
2 sentences1946This court has adopted that rule (Lusk v. Belote, 22 Minn. 468 ; Ross v. Mellin, 36 Minn. 421 , 32 N. W. 172 ; Johnson v. Chadbourn Finance Co. 89 Minn. 310 , 94 N. W. 874 , 99 A. S. R. 571; Knutson v. Fidelity Mut. 1946This court has adopted that rule (Lusk v. Belote, 22 Minn. 468 ; Ross v. Mellin, 36 Minn. 421 , 32 N. W. 172 ; Johnson v. Chadbourn Finance Co. 89 Minn. 310 , 94 N. W. 874 , 99 A. S. R. 571; Knutson v. Fidelity Mut. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
State v. McLarne
green
2 sentences1940That *98 this court has adopted this analysis and refused to sustain a conviction where the corpus delicti was not established by evidence extraneous to the statement of the defendant is apparent from State v. McLarne, 128 Minn. 163 , 150 N. W. 787, 789 , wherein it was said, speaking through Mr. Justice Holt, p. 167: “Nowhere in the charge was the proposition presented to the jury whether the evidence established the corpus delicti apart from the defendant’s admission or so-called confession.” With this preliminary, it is manifest that we must find in the record some evidence reasonably estab 1940That *98 this court has adopted this analysis and refused to sustain a conviction where the corpus delicti was not established by evidence extraneous to the statement of the defendant is apparent from State v. McLarne, 128 Minn. 163 , 150 N. W. 787, 789 , wherein it was said, speaking through Mr. Justice Holt, p. 167: “Nowhere in the charge was the proposition presented to the jury whether the evidence established the corpus delicti apart from the defendant’s admission or so-called confession.” With this preliminary, it is manifest that we must find in the record some evidence reasonably estab | 1 | 1940–1940 |
State v. Saporen
green
2 sentences1940I agree that under State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , 285 N. W. 898 , the extrajudicial statement of the prosecuting witness was not evidence but only impeaching testimony when introduced at the trial. 1940I agree that under State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , 285 N. W. 898 , the extrajudicial statement of the prosecuting witness was not evidence but only impeaching testimony when introduced at the trial. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Marvin v. Dutcher
neutral
2 sentences1929Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , 4 N. W. 685 ; State v. Eisele, 37 Minn. 256 , 33 N. W. 785 ; Darwin v. Keigher, 45 Minn. 64 , 47 N. W. 314 ; Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. 1929Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , 4 N. W. 685 ; State v. Eisele, 37 Minn. 256 , 33 N. W. 785 ; Darwin v. Keigher, 45 Minn. 64 , 47 N. W. 314 ; Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
State v. Eisele
green
2 sentences1929Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , 4 N. W. 685 ; State v. Eisele, 37 Minn. 256 , 33 N. W. 785 ; Darwin v. Keigher, 45 Minn. 64 , 47 N. W. 314 ; Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. 1929Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , 4 N. W. 685 ; State v. Eisele, 37 Minn. 256 , 33 N. W. 785 ; Darwin v. Keigher, 45 Minn. 64 , 47 N. W. 314 ; Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Darwin v. Keigher
neutral
2 sentences1929Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , 4 N. W. 685 ; State v. Eisele, 37 Minn. 256 , 33 N. W. 785 ; Darwin v. Keigher, 45 Minn. 64 , 47 N. W. 314 ; Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. 1929Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , 4 N. W. 685 ; State v. Eisele, 37 Minn. 256 , 33 N. W. 785 ; Darwin v. Keigher, 45 Minn. 64 , 47 N. W. 314 ; Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Jones v. Ewing
neutral
1 sentence1925That the pendency of an action to recover the debt secured by the mortgage suspends the right to proceed to foreclose by advertisement was held in Jones v. Ewing, 22 Minn. 157 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Peaslee v. Ridgway
green
2 sentences1925As to this remedy “the court has adopted the rule that the statutes must be strictly pursued, and a clear departure from the terms and requirements of the statutes vitiates the proceedings.” Peaslee v. Ridgway, 82 Minn. 288 , 84 N. W. 1024 , and cases therein cited. 1925As to this remedy “the court has adopted the rule that the statutes must be strictly pursued, and a clear departure from the terms and requirements of the statutes vitiates the proceedings.” Peaslee v. Ridgway, 82 Minn. 288 , 84 N. W. 1024 , and cases therein cited. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
State v. Peterson
neutral
2 sentences1925State v. Peterson, 98 Minn. 210 , 108 N. W. 6 . 1925State v. Peterson, 98 Minn. 210 , 108 N. W. 6 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Karbach v. Grant
neutral
2 sentences1923Karbach v. Grant, 131 Minn. 269 , 154 N. W. 1071 ; The Staring Co. v. Rossman, 132 Minn. 209 , 156 N. W. 120 ; The Independent Harv. 1923Karbach v. Grant, 131 Minn. 269 , 154 N. W. 1071 ; The Staring Co. v. Rossman, 132 Minn. 209 , 156 N. W. 120 ; The Independent Harv. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Staring Co. v. Rossman
neutral
1 sentence1923Karbach v. Grant, 131 Minn. 269 , 154 N. W. 1071 ; The Staring Co. v. Rossman, 132 Minn. 209 , 156 N. W. 120 ; The Independent Harv. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
State ex rel. Globe Indemnity Co. v. District Court
neutral
1 sentence1923Karbach v. Grant, 131 Minn. 269 , 154 N. W. 1071 ; The Staring Co. v. Rossman, 132 Minn. 209 , 156 N. W. 120 ; The Independent Harv. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Fredin v. Richards
green
2 sentences1922Fredin v. Richards, 66 Minn. 46 , 68 N. W. 402 ; State v. La Bar, 131 Minn. 432 , 155 N. W. 211 ; Barrett v. Van Duzee, 139 Minn. 351 , 166 N. W. 407 . 1922Fredin v. Richards, 66 Minn. 46 , 68 N. W. 402 ; State v. La Bar, 131 Minn. 432 , 155 N. W. 211 ; Barrett v. Van Duzee, 139 Minn. 351 , 166 N. W. 407 . | 1 | 1922–1922 |
State v. La Bar
green
2 sentences1922Fredin v. Richards, 66 Minn. 46 , 68 N. W. 402 ; State v. La Bar, 131 Minn. 432 , 155 N. W. 211 ; Barrett v. Van Duzee, 139 Minn. 351 , 166 N. W. 407 . 1922Fredin v. Richards, 66 Minn. 46 , 68 N. W. 402 ; State v. La Bar, 131 Minn. 432 , 155 N. W. 211 ; Barrett v. Van Duzee, 139 Minn. 351 , 166 N. W. 407 . | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Barrett v. Van Duzee
neutral
2 sentences1922Fredin v. Richards, 66 Minn. 46 , 68 N. W. 402 ; State v. La Bar, 131 Minn. 432 , 155 N. W. 211 ; Barrett v. Van Duzee, 139 Minn. 351 , 166 N. W. 407 . 1922Fredin v. Richards, 66 Minn. 46 , 68 N. W. 402 ; State v. La Bar, 131 Minn. 432 , 155 N. W. 211 ; Barrett v. Van Duzee, 139 Minn. 351 , 166 N. W. 407 . | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Peterson v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
neutral
2 sentences1921Co. 75 Minn. 368 , 77 N. W. 985 , 43 L.R.A. 581 , 74 Am. 1921Co. 75 Minn. 368 , 77 N. W. 985 , 43 L.R.A. 581 , 74 Am. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Stokoe v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
neutral
1 sentence1901The application of the rule is illustrated further in Clifford v. Tomlinson, 62 Minn. 195 , 64 N. W. 381 ; Mason v. Goodnow, 41 Minn. 9 , 42 N. W. 482 ; Richards v. Finnegan, 45 Minn. 208 , 47 N. W. 788 ; and Backus v. Burke, 48 Minn. 260 , 51 N. W. 284 . | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Mason v. Goodnow
neutral
1 sentence1901The application of the rule is illustrated further in Clifford v. Tomlinson, 62 Minn. 195 , 64 N. W. 381 ; Mason v. Goodnow, 41 Minn. 9 , 42 N. W. 482 ; Richards v. Finnegan, 45 Minn. 208 , 47 N. W. 788 ; and Backus v. Burke, 48 Minn. 260 , 51 N. W. 284 . | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Conger v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
neutral
1 sentence1901The application of the rule is illustrated further in Clifford v. Tomlinson, 62 Minn. 195 , 64 N. W. 381 ; Mason v. Goodnow, 41 Minn. 9 , 42 N. W. 482 ; Richards v. Finnegan, 45 Minn. 208 , 47 N. W. 788 ; and Backus v. Burke, 48 Minn. 260 , 51 N. W. 284 . | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Richards v. Finnegan
neutral
1 sentence1901The application of the rule is illustrated further in Clifford v. Tomlinson, 62 Minn. 195 , 64 N. W. 381 ; Mason v. Goodnow, 41 Minn. 9 , 42 N. W. 482 ; Richards v. Finnegan, 45 Minn. 208 , 47 N. W. 788 ; and Backus v. Burke, 48 Minn. 260 , 51 N. W. 284 . | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Elmier v. Brant
green
1 sentence1901The application of the rule is illustrated further in Clifford v. Tomlinson, 62 Minn. 195 , 64 N. W. 381 ; Mason v. Goodnow, 41 Minn. 9 , 42 N. W. 482 ; Richards v. Finnegan, 45 Minn. 208 , 47 N. W. 788 ; and Backus v. Burke, 48 Minn. 260 , 51 N. W. 284 . | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Backus v. Burke
green
1 sentence1901The application of the rule is illustrated further in Clifford v. Tomlinson, 62 Minn. 195 , 64 N. W. 381 ; Mason v. Goodnow, 41 Minn. 9 , 42 N. W. 482 ; Richards v. Finnegan, 45 Minn. 208 , 47 N. W. 788 ; and Backus v. Burke, 48 Minn. 260 , 51 N. W. 284 . | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Clifford v. Tomlinson
green
2 sentences1901The application of the rule is illustrated further in Clifford v. Tomlinson, 62 Minn. 195 , 64 N. W. 381 ; Mason v. Goodnow, 41 Minn. 9 , 42 N. W. 482 ; Richards v. Finnegan, 45 Minn. 208 , 47 N. W. 788 ; and Backus v. Burke, 48 Minn. 260 , 51 N. W. 284 . 1901The application of the rule is illustrated further in Clifford v. Tomlinson, 62 Minn. 195 , 64 N. W. 381 ; Mason v. Goodnow, 41 Minn. 9 , 42 N. W. 482 ; Richards v. Finnegan, 45 Minn. 208 , 47 N. W. 788 ; and Backus v. Burke, 48 Minn. 260 , 51 N. W. 284 . | 1 | 1901–1901 |
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.