Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Yates, 109 N.W. 1070.

41 citing documents.

State v. Shetsky 40 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1949
State v. Shetsky 40 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1949
State v. Rose, 47 Minn. 47 , ; State v. English, 62 Minn. 402 , ; State v. Hoy, 83 Minn. 286 , ; State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; State v. Minneapolis Milk Co. 124 Minn. 34, 45 , , 51 L.R.A.
State v. Elias 285 N.W. 475 Minn. 1939
State v. Elias 285 N.W. 475 Minn. 1939
See State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; Throckmorton v. Holt, 180 U. S. 552 , 21 S. Ct. 474 , 45 L. ed. 663; Evans v. C. M. & St.
Freeman v. Morris Construction Co. 228 N.W. 442 Minn. 1929
Freeman v. Morris Construction Co. 228 N.W. 442 Minn. 1929
Harriott v. Holmes, 77 Minn. 245 , ; State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; Taubert v. Taubert, 103 Minn. 247 , ; Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 *99 Minn. 400, ; State v. Jones, 126 Minn. 45 , ; State v. Dallas, 145 Minn. 92 , ; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
State v. Watzek 197 N.W. 669 Minn. 1924
State v. Watzek 197 N.W. 669 Minn. 1924
Co. 43 Minn. 414 , ; State v. Yates, 99 Minn., 461 , ; Crowley v. Burns B. & Mnfg.
State v. Mulroy 189 N.W. 441 Minn. 1922
State v. Dolliver 184 N.W. 848 Minn. 1921
State v. Dolliver 184 N.W. 848 Minn. 1921
State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , .
Quinn-Shepherdson Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 183 N.W. 347 Minn. 1921
Quinn-Shepherdson Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 183 N.W. 347 Minn. 1921
In giving this instruction, the court is said to have committed prejudicial error under the doctrine laid down in State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400 , ; Geddes v. Van Rhee, 126 Minn. 517 , .
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. Almos, 122 Minn. 479 , ; Gran v. Gran, 129 Minn. 531 , ; State v. Sailor, 130 Minn. 84 , .
State v. Liss 176 N.W. 51 Minn. 1920
State v. Liss 176 N.W. 51 Minn. 1920
State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , .
State v. Kearns 165 N.W. 480 Minn. 1917
State v. Kearns 165 N.W. 480 Minn. 1917
State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , , and State v. Jones, 126 Minn. 45 , , cited by defendant were quite different.
Flick v. Ellis-Hall Co. 165 N.W. 135 Minn. 1917
Flick v. Ellis-Hall Co. 165 N.W. 135 Minn. 1917
We find nothing in the charge violating the procedure announced in such cases, cited by defendant, as: State v.Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; Taubert v. Taubert, 103 Minn. 247 , ; Valley Lumber Co. v. Smith, 71 Wis.
Evans v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 158 N.W. 335 Minn. 1916
Evans v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 158 N.W. 335 Minn. 1916
State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; Strasser v. Stabeck, 112 Minn. 90 , ; Salo v. Duluth & Iron Range R. Co. 121 Minn. 78 , 140 N. *295 W. 188 .
State v. Jones 147 N.W. 822 Minn. 1914
State v. Jones 147 N.W. 822 Minn. 1914
We are not able to say that the charge did not prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant; and the case comes within the principle applied in State v. Almos, 122 Minn. 479 , , and State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , .
State v. Minneapolis Milk Co. 144 N.W. 417 Minn. 1913
State v. Minneapolis Milk Co. 144 N.W. 417 Minn. 1913
State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
State v. Almos 142 N.W. 801 Minn. 1913
State v. Almos 142 N.W. 801 Minn. 1913
State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; State v. Hoy, 83 Minn. 286 , .
Salo v. Duluth & Iron Range Railroad 140 N.W. 188 Minn. 1913
Salo v. Duluth & Iron Range Railroad 140 N.W. 188 Minn. 1913
See Crowley v. Burns B. & M. Co. 100 Minn. 178, 182 , ; State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461, 464 , .
Kincaid v. Jungkunz 123 N.W. 1082 Minn. 1910
Kincaid v. Jungkunz 123 N.W. 1082 Minn. 1910
Harriott v. Holmes, 77 Minn. 245 , ; State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , .
State v. Fournier 122 N.W. 329 Minn. 1909
State v. Fournier 122 N.W. 329 Minn. 1909
State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; People v. Klise, (Mich.)
Gracz v. Anderson 116 N.W. 1116 Minn. 1908
Gracz v. Anderson 116 N.W. 1116 Minn. 1908
State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; Taubert v. Taubert, 103 Minn. 247 , .
Taubert v. Taubert 114 N.W. 763 Minn. 1908
Taubert v. Taubert 114 N.W. 763 Minn. 1908
185; State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , .
Crowley v. Burns Boiler & Manufacturing Co. 110 N.W. 969 Minn. 1907
Crowley v. Burns Boiler & Manufacturing Co. 110 N.W. 969 Minn. 1907
This is illustrated by the recent case of State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , .