Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schueller, 138 N.W. 937.

36 citing documents.

State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491 , State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145, 148 , State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26, 29 , State v. DePauw, 246 Minn. 91
State v. Whelan 189 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1971
State v. Whelan 189 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1971
One exception was carved out in State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , , in which this court held that prior acts of sexual misconduct with the same victim *90 were admissible in connection with a charge for a similar offense.
State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
4 State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26, 29 , .
State v. Hopfe 82 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1957
State v. Hopfe 82 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1957
State v. Shtemme, 133 Minn. 184 , ; State v. Roby, 128 Minn. 187 , ; State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , .
State v. Stevens 80 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1956
State v. Stevens 80 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1956
3 State v. Henderson, 72 Minn. 74 , ; State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , ; Mason’s Dunnell, Minn. Practice, § 1383; 20 Dunnell, Dig.
State v. DePauw 74 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1955
State v. DePauw 74 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1955
See, State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26, 29 , ; State v. Shtemme, 133 Minn. 184, 186 , ; State v. Haney, 219 Minn. 518 , 18 N. W. (2d) 315 ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394, 398 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39, 43 , ; State v. Yurkiewicz, 212 Minn. 208, 210, 211 , 3 N. W. (2d) 775
City of St. Paul v. Greene 56 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1952
Criticized City of St. Paul v. Greene 56 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1952
L. Rev. 1032 , in discussing the Doty case said: “Evidence of other abortions was admitted to show ‘willingness and readiness’ a purpose somewhat indistinguishable from propensity.” Or State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , ; or State v. Roby, 128 Minn. 187 , .
State v. Bailey 50 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1951
State v. Bailey 50 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1951
Blanton v. United States (8 Cir.) 213 F. 320, 326 ; cf. State v. Grunewald, 211 Minn. 74 , ; State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , .
Luley v. Luley 48 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1951
Luley v. Luley 48 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1951
3 See, State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , ; State v. Haney, 219 Minn. 518 , 18 N. W. (2d) 315 ; State v. Start, 65 Or.
State v. Haney 18 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 1945
State v. Haney 18 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 1945
The court, in admitting the testimony for the purpose of showing the defendant’s conduct and purpose toward Viva and as corroboration, said: “* * * There can be no question that both prior and subsequent conduct in respect to Viva, reasonably near to the offense charged, was proper evidence (State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , ; State v. Roby, 128 Minn. 187 , ; Ann. Cas.
State v. Grunewald 300 N.W. 206 Minn. 1941
State v. Grunewald 300 N.W. 206 Minn. 1941
State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , .
State v. Elijah 289 N.W. 575 Minn. 1940
State v. Elijah 289 N.W. 575 Minn. 1940
State v. Wallen, 123 Minn. 128 , ; State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , .
State v. McPadden 184 N.W. 568 Minn. 1921
State v. McPadden 184 N.W. 568 Minn. 1921
The precise point was involved in State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , ; State v. Roby, 128 Minn. 187 , , Ann. Cas.
State v. Wassing 169 N.W. 485 Minn. 1918
State v. Wassing 169 N.W. 485 Minn. 1918
State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , ; State v. Roby, 128 Minn. 187 , , Ann. Cas.
State v. Shtemme 158 N.W. 48 Minn. 1916
State v. Shtemme 158 N.W. 48 Minn. 1916
There can be no question that both prior and subsequent conduct in respect to Viva, reasonably near to the offense charged, was proper evidence (State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , ; State v. Roby, 128 Minn. 187 , ; Ann. Cas.
State v. Roby 150 N.W. 793 Minn. 1915
State v. Roby 150 N.W. 793 Minn. 1915
This subject was considered in State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , .
State v. Brand 145 N.W. 39 Minn. 1914
State v. Brand 145 N.W. 39 Minn. 1914
49; State v. Williams, 96 Minn. 351 , ; State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26 , ; State v. Rusk, 123 Minn. 276 , .
State v. Wallen 143 N.W. 119 Minn. 1913
State v. Wallen 143 N.W. 119 Minn. 1913
It is not contended that evidence of other acts of intercourse was inadmissible, (State v. Schmeller, 120 Minn. 26 , ), but that the other acts were too far removed from the date charged to serve as corroboration, and only tended to prejudice the jury against defendant.