Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 610.37 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1963 c 753 art 2 s 17]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1953–1976 · leading case: State v. Mertz, 130 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. 1964).
State v. Mertz, 130 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. 1964). “1961, §§ 610.37 and 610.38), and in the event of a breach of conditions of probation thereafter to revoke the stay (Minn.”
Breeding v. Swenson, 60 N.W.2d 4 (Minn. 1953). “The trial court, after sentencing relator to an indeterminate sentence, stayed execution of the sentence, as it had a right to do under § 610.37, and then, as authorized by § 610.”
State ex rel. Searles v. Tahash, 136 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. 1965). “1961, § 610.37. Nevertheless, no hearing to determine whether there were mitigating circumstances was suggested or granted by the court pursuant to Minn.”
Warsett v. City of Crystal, 246 N.W.2d 182 (Minn. 1976). “1961, § 610.37 repealed by L. 1963, c. 753, art.”
Breeding v. Swenson, 62 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 1954). “The trial court, after sentencing relator to an indeterminate sentence, stayed execution of the sentence, as it had a right to do under § 610.37, and then, as authorized by § 610.”
State Ex Rel. Napiwoski v. Tahash, 153 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. 1967). “1961, § 610.37, 1 Minn. St. 631.20, or § 243.49, if the defendant is not afforded his right of allocution and his attorney fails to speak on his behalf at the time of sentencing, he is entitled to a vacation of his sentence and the appointment of counsel to present to the trial…”
State v. Zecher, 128 N.W.2d 83 (Minn. 1964). “1961, §§ 610.37 and 610.38 (repealed by L. 1963, c.”
State Ex Rel. Jones v. Tahash, 149 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 1967). “1961, § 610.37, is also without substance. The statute did not compel a presentence investigation.”
State Ex Rel. Morris v. Tahash, 115 N.W.2d 676 (Minn. 1962). “433 ; §§ 610.37, 610.38, 610.39. It may be added that in making such an order the court is not required to state its reasons therefor, the omission to do so merely constituting an irregularity not going to the question of jurisdiction.”
State Ex Rel. O'Neill v. Tahash, 122 N.W.2d 165 (Minn. 1963). “The suspension of the sentence and the subsequent vacation of the stay were authorized by §§ 610.37 to 610.39. See, State v. Meyer, 228 Minn.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.