Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Nestaval, 75 N.W. 725.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
It is well- settled that, generally, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (); (“It was not the duty of the jury to count the number of witnesses, and render a verdict in accordance with the majority of them, but to weigh the testimony, and render a verdict accordingly.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“It was not the duty of the jury to count the number of witnesses, and render a verdict in accordance with the majority of them, but to weigh the testimony, and render a verdict accordingly.”); (“We have said that a verdict may be based on the tes
Morey v. Peppin 375 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1985
Morey v. Peppin 375 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1985
911 (1928); State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415 , 75 N.W.
State on Behalf of Forslund v. Bronson 305 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1981
State on Behalf of Forslund v. Bronson 305 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1981
204 (1905); State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415 , 75 N.W.
State v. Carmena 189 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1971
State v. Carmena 189 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1971
State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415, 416 , ; Reilly v. Shapiro, 196 Minn. 376, 381 , .
In Re Estate of Karger 253 Minn. 542 Minn. 1958
In Re Estate of Karger 253 Minn. 542 Minn. 1958
State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415, 416 , 75 N.W.
Waldo v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 70 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1955
Waldo v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 70 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1955
Co. 38 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415 , ; Patzke v. M. & St.
State v. Sax 42 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1950
State v. Sax 42 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1950
Schumacher v. Hausewedell, 94 Minn. 177 , ; State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415 , ; see, State v. Dougher, 47 Minn. 436 , ; State v. Jeffrey, supra; Ladd v. Martineau, 205 Minn. 129 , ; see, M. S. A. 257.33.
County of Stearns v. Township of Fair Haven 279 N.W. 707 Minn. 1938
County of Stearns v. Township of Fair Haven 279 N.W. 707 Minn. 1938
State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415 , ; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Benson v. Northland Transportation Co. 274 N.W. 532 Minn. 1937
Benson v. Northland Transportation Co. 274 N.W. 532 Minn. 1937
Co. 38 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415 , ; Patzke v. M. & St.
Reilly v. Shapiro 265 N.W. 284 Minn. 1936
Reilly v. Shapiro 265 N.W. 284 Minn. 1936
Our statute relating to illegitimacy proceedings against the father is “one in law for a particular purpose, viz., for the indemnity of society against the expense of the support of the child.” State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415, 416 , .
State v. Jeffrey 247 N.W. 692 Minn. 1933
State v. Jeffrey 247 N.W. 692 Minn. 1933
In the Longwell case it was said [ 135 Minn. 66 ]: “By practically all of our decisions Ave have negatived the theory that they are so far of a criminal nature as to require an application of the rules of criminal procedure, and the practice in civil actions has uniformly been folloAved and applied.” In State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415, 419 , 75 N.W.
State v. Lindskog 221 N.W. 911 Minn. 1928
State v. Lindskog 221 N.W. 911 Minn. 1928
State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415 , 75 N.W.
Skaggs v. State 207 P. 877 Ariz. 1922
State ex rel. Mattes v. Juvenile Court of the County of Ramsey 179 N.W. 1006 Minn. 1920
State ex rel. Mattes v. Juvenile Court of the County of Ramsey 179 N.W. 1006 Minn. 1920
State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415 , ; State v. Hausewedell, 94 Minn. 177 , ; Olson v. Johnson, 23 Minn. 301 .
State v. Dallas 176 N.W. 491 Minn. 1920
State v. Dallas 176 N.W. 491 Minn. 1920
State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415 , 75 N W. 725; Harriott v. Holmes, 77 Minn. 245 , ; Goodhue F. W. Co. v. Davis, 81 Minn. 210 , ; State v. Hoy, 83 Minn. 286 , ; State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; Taubert v. Taubert, 103 Minn. 247 , ; Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400
State v. Halverson 114 N.W. 957 Minn. 1908
State v. Halverson 114 N.W. 957 Minn. 1908
It related to the evidence of the complaining witness, who was pecuniarily interested in the result of the action (State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415, 418 , ), and referred to an issue which was of great importance in the case.
State ex rel. Schumacher v. Hausewedell 102 N.W. 204 Minn. 1905
State ex rel. Schumacher v. Hausewedell 102 N.W. 204 Minn. 1905
State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415 , .
State v. Spencer 73 Minn. 101 Minn. 1898
State v. Spencer 73 Minn. 101 Minn. 1898
These declarations were statements made by the person who at least had a direct pecuniary interest in the result of the action (State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415 , ), in her own favor, and tending to prove her case.