Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 618. UNIFORM NARCOTIC DRUG ACT
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 618.01 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1971 c 937 s 22]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1964–1973 · leading case: State v. Siirila, 193 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. 1971).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Siirila, 193 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. 1971). · cites it 6× “1969, §§ 618.01, 618.02, and 618.21, subd. 1. Section 618.”
State v. Staat, 192 N.W.2d 192 (Minn. 1971). · cites it 2× “1969, §§ 618.01, 618.02, and 618.21. The dispositive issue raised is whether the trial court erred in ruling that the physician-patient privilege created by Minn.”
State v. Buchwald, 196 N.W.2d 445 (Minn. 1972). · cites it 2× “1969, §§ 618.01, 618.02, and 618.21, subd. 1. The sole issue presented is whether the physical evidence of these substances should have been suppressed as the product of a constitutionally impermissible police search and seizure.”
State v. Wiley, 205 N.W.2d 667 (Minn. 1973). “1969, §§ 618.01, 618.02, and 618.21, subd. 1. 2 Mrs.”
Carroll Robinson v. United States, 327 F.2d 618 (8th Cir. 1964). “Minn.Stat.Ann. § 618.01, Subdivisions 14 and 23, and § 618.”
State v. Frink, 206 N.W.2d 664 (Minn. 1973). “1969, §§ 618.01 and 618.02. The *58 offenses were felonies under Minn.”
State v. DeGidio, 152 N.W.2d 179 (Minn. 1967). · cites it 2× “The record on appeal includes directives of the Treasury Department, Bureau of Narcotics, which show that percodan is the trade name for dihydrohydroxycodeinone and that this compound is a derivative of morphine.”
State v. Resnick, 177 N.W.2d 418 (Minn. 1970). “” By the terms of § 618.01, subd. 14, the words “narcotic drugs” are defined as follows: *169 “ ‘Narcotic drugs’ means coca leaves, opium, cannabis, isonipe-caine, amidone, isoamidone, ketobemidone, and every other substance neither chemically nor physically distinguishable from…”
State v. Hebert, 202 N.W.2d 884 (Minn. 1972). “1969, §§ 618.01, 618.02, 618.21, subd. 1, contends on this appeal that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence of a similar sale by defendant a week prior to the date of the charged offense, 1 and in instructing the jury on the use of this…”
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.