Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Findling, 144 N.W. 142.

33 citing documents.

Brian Thomas Hughes, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The supreme court reasoned that “[m]erely allowing a conviction obtained before the amendment to be used in the assessment of the penalty for a subsequent offense does not viol ate the constitution.” Id.; see also State v. Findling , (explaining that increased punishment for subsequent offense is not a punishment for the first offense a second time, but a more severe punishment for the second offense).
State v. Ronquist 600 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1999
State v. Ronquist 600 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1999
In support of his argument, -47 (Minn.App.1992), which in turn relied on this court’s decision in State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413 , 144 N.W.
State v. Dumas 587 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Dumas 587 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413, 415 , 144 N.W.
State v. Stewart 486 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Stewart 486 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413, 416 , 144 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Richter v. Swenson 63 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1954
State Ex Rel. Richter v. Swenson 63 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1954
The act has been held constitutional against the claim of second jeopardy since State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413 , , 49 L.R.A.
Dixon v. Swenson 62 N.W.2d 926 Minn. 1954
Dixon v. Swenson 62 N.W.2d 926 Minn. 1954
See, State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413 , , 49 L.R.A.(N.S.)
State v. Bailey 50 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1951
State v. Bailey 50 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1951
See, e. g., State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413 , , 49 L.R.A.
Shaw v. Utecht 43 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1950
Shaw v. Utecht 43 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1950
State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413 , , 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 449.
State ex rel. Hansen v. Utecht 40 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 1950
State ex rel. Hansen v. Utecht 40 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 1950
Our Supreme Court held to the contrary in State vs. Fruedling [Findling], 123 Minn. 413 [ , 49 L.R.A.(N.S.)
State v. Gorman 40 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1949
State v. Gorman 40 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1949
See, also, 6 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 1751; State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413 , , 49 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Ammundson v. Falk 36 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1949
Ammundson v. Falk 36 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1949
Jur., Evidence, § 678), as the numerous cases cited in the Annotations show, applying the rule to utterances of children, husband and wife, convicts, slaves, and others incompetent as witnesses (see State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413 , , 49 L.R.A.[N.S.]
State Ex Rel. MacMillen v. Utecht 21 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1945
State Ex Rel. MacMillen v. Utecht 21 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1945
See, *143 State v. Zywicki, 175 Minn. 508 , , wherein are cited State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413 , , 49 L.R.A.
State v. Brown 296 N.W. 582 Minn. 1941
State v. Brown 296 N.W. 582 Minn. 1941
State *482 v. Graham, 176 Minn. 164 , ; State v. Kerr, 162 Minn. 309 , ; State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413 , , 49 L.R.A.(N.S.)
State v. Elias 285 N.W. 475 Minn. 1939
State v. Elias 285 N.W. 475 Minn. 1939
§ 2461; State v. Cantieny, 34 Minn. 1 , ; State v. Pearce, 56 Minn. 226 , ; State v. Mueller, 122 Minn. 91 , ; State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413 , , 49 L.R.A.(N.S.)
State v. Zywicki 221 N.W. 900 Minn. 1928
State v. Zywicki 221 N.W. 900 Minn. 1928
Reference may be made to State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413 , , 49 L.R.A.
State v. Brendeke 197 N.W. 273 Minn. 1924
State v. Brendeke 197 N.W. 273 Minn. 1924
State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413 , , 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 449; State v. Reed, 132 Minn. 295 , .
State ex rel. Carmody v. Reed 156 N.W. 127 Minn. 1916
State ex rel. Carmody v. Reed 156 N.W. 127 Minn. 1916
State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413 , .