Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 620. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY BY FRAUD
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 620.10 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1963 c 753 art 2 s 17]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 11 cases, 1958–1969 · leading case: State v. Clark, 134 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. 1965).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Clark, 134 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. 1965). · cites it 7× “1961, § 620.10. Upon arraignment on November 2, 1962, defendant demurred to the information.”
State v. Owens, 129 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. 1964). · cites it 6× “Lederman, was affected and injured, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, the same being Section 620.10 (2), said acts constituting Forgery in the Second Degree and against the peace and dignity of the State of Minnesota.”
State v. Clark, 131 N.W.2d 204 (Minn. 1964). · cites it 3× “1961, § 620.10, 1 is incorrect. Section 620.10 contains no reference to “uttering” but deals exclusively with the act of forging an instrument.”
State v. Briton, 121 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 1963). “These allegations cannot, under any construction of the statute, constitute an offense under § 620.10, which makes no mention of “uttering” but deals exclusively with what constitute acts of forgery.”
State Ex Rel. Masters v. Tahash, 123 N.W.2d 600 (Minn. 1963). · cites it 4× “19 and not in violation of § 620.10 which makes no mention of uttering but deals exclusively with what constitutes acts of forgery.”
State v. Pederson, 88 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 1958). “On the state of the record at the time sentence was imposed the punishment could not exceed that imposed for violation of § 620.10, the limit of which would be ten years under § 620.”
State v. Lehn, 134 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. 1965). · cites it 3× “LEHN committed the crime of FORGERY IN THE SECOND DEGREE, (Minnesota Statutes 1961, Sections 620.10 and 620.19)”; that on or about August 20, 1963, at Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, he “willfully, unlawfully, wrongfully, knowingly and fe-loniously, with intent to…”
Hayes v. State, 169 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. 1969). “1961, § 620.10. Defendant contends that at the time he entered a plea of guilty he was misled as to the precise nature of the charge against him and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.”
State v. Schultz, 136 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 1965). · cites it 5× “19 in uttering a forged check; and forgery in the second degree under § 620.10 in forging a check, thereby misleading or placing him in double jeopardy; and (2) due process was denied to him because counsel had failed to attack the information for duplicity.”
State Ex Rel. Meldahl v. Tahash, 153 N.W.2d 147 (Minn. 1967). “1961, § 620.10. On August 16, 1962, he was sentenced to the State Prison for a period not to exceed 5 years.”
Ryan v. State, 172 N.W.2d 751 (Minn. 1969). “1961, §§ 620.10 and 620.19, which was alleged to have occurred on April 11, 1961.”
— Minn. Stat. § 620.10(2) — 2 cases
State v. Owens, 129 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. 1964). “Lederman, was affected and injured, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, the same being Section 620.10 (2), said acts constituting Forgery in the Second Degree and against the peace and dignity of the State of Minnesota.”
State v. Clark, 134 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. 1965). “1961, § 620.10. Upon arraignment on November 2, 1962, defendant demurred to the information.”
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.