Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co., 177 N.W. 937.

57 citing documents.

In re the Registration of DiVall Insured Income Properties 2 Ltd. Partnership 445 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In re the Registration of DiVall Insured Income Properties 2 Ltd. Partnership 445 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
*860 State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co., 146 Minn. 52, 55 , 177 N.W.
Caucus Distributors, Inc. v. Commissioner of Commerce 422 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Caucus Distributors, Inc. v. Commissioner of Commerce 422 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co., 146 Minn. 52, 55 , 177 N.W.
Logan v. Panuska 293 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
State v. Hamilton 268 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1978
State v. Hamilton 268 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1978
State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co., 146 Minn. 52, 57 , 177 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Coin Wholesalers, Inc. 250 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1976
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Coin Wholesalers, Inc. 250 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1976
In State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. 146 Minn. 52, 56 , we defined an investment contract as “[t]he placing of capital or laying out of money in a way intended to secure income or profit from its employment.” As recently as 1973, this court exhaustively reviewed the history of securities regulation in this state and concluded that although
State v. Investors Security Corporation 209 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1973
State v. Investors Security Corporation 209 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1973
5 Of *9 particular importance to the instant matter are our decisions in State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. 146 Minn. 52 , and State v. Lorentz, 221 Minn. 366
State v. Mathiasen 141 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1966
State v. Mathiasen 141 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1966
In considering the question of duplicity, this court has stated in State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. 146 Minn. 52, 58 , , 939: “Generally speaking, where an offense consists of several distinct acts which are in fact to be construed, when taken together, as one continuous act, such acts may be charged in an indictment without making it subject to objection for duplicity.” See, also, State ex rel.
State v. Weber 137 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1965
State v. Weber 137 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1965
Rowan v. United States (5 Cir.) 281 F. 137 ; State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. 146 Minn. 52 , .
Donovan v. Dixon 113 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 1962
Donovan v. Dixon 113 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 1962
This court in State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. 146 Minn. 52 , , held that a certificate providing that in consideration of money paid and assistance in promoting sales the holder would share in the profits of the business was a security within the blue sky law.
Anderson v. Mikel Drilling Co. 102 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1960
Anderson v. Mikel Drilling Co. 102 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1960
10 Boyum v. Massachusetts Investors Trust, 215 Minn. 485 , 10 N. W. (2d) 379 ; State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. 146 Minn. 52 , .
State v. Hedstrom 45 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 1951
State v. Hedstrom 45 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 1951
State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. 146 Minn. 52, 57 , .
State v. Lorentz 22 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1946
State v. Lorentz 22 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1946
In State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. 146 Minn. 52 , , a corporation issued and sold certificates which provided that, *369 in consideration of a sum paid by the purchaser and of his assistance in promoting the sale of goods manufactured by the corporation, he would share in the profits.
Boyum v. Massachusetts Investors Trust 10 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1943
Boyum v. Massachusetts Investors Trust 10 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1943
See State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52 , .
State v. Hofacre 288 N.W. 13 Minn. 1939
State v. Hofacre 288 N.W. 13 Minn. 1939
And in State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52, 56 , , this court said: “The placing of capital or laying out of money in a way intended to secure income or profit from its employment is an investment as that word is commonly used and understood.” The court in the Crude Oil Corporation case (93 F. [2d] 847) lists numerous cases holding other but
Zochrison v. Redemption Gold Corp. 274 N.W. 536 Minn. 1937
Isanti Investment Co. v. Johnson 249 N.W. 670 Minn. 1933
In Re Estate of Johnson 249 N.W. 670 Minn. 1933
Isanti Investment Co. v. Johnson 249 N.W. 670 Minn. 1933
See generally State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52 , ; Hanneman v. Gratz, 170 Minn. 38 , ; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
In Re Estate of Johnson 249 N.W. 670 Minn. 1933
See generally State v. Gopher T. R. Co. 146 Minn. 52 , 177 N.W.
State v. Robbins 240 N.W. 456 Minn. 1932
State v. Robbins 240 N.W. 456 Minn. 1932
State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52 , ; State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165; State v. Ogden, 154 Minn. 425 , ; State v. Bushard, 164 Minn. 455 , ; Kerst v. Nelson, 171 Minn. 191 , , 54 A. L. R. 495; State v. Swenson, 172 Minn. 277 , , 54 A. L. R. 490; State
State v. Ostensoe 231 N.W. 804 Minn. 1930
State v. Ostensoe 231 N.W. 804 Minn. 1930
31 C. J. 765; State v. Greenwood, 76 Minn. 207 , ; State v. Ekberg, 178 Minn. 437 , ; State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52 , .
State v. Code 227 N.W. 652 Minn. 1929
State v. Code 227 N.W. 652 Minn. 1929
State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52, 58 , .
State Ex Rel. Weich v. City of Red Wing 220 N.W. 611 Minn. 1928
State Ex Rel. Weich v. City of Red Wing 220 N.W. 611 Minn. 1928
State v. Greenwood, 76 Minn. 207 , ; State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52, 57 , .
State v. Swenson 215 N.W. 177 Minn. 1927
State v. Swenson 215 N.W. 177 Minn. 1927
State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52 , ; State v. Summerland, 150 Minn. 266 , ; State v. Evans, 354 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165; State v. Ogden, 154 Minn. 425 , ; State v. Summerland, 155 Minn. 395 , ; State v. Bushard, 164 Minn. 455 , ; State v. Nordstrom, 169 Minn. 21
Hanneman v. Gratz 211 N.W. 961 Minn. 1927
Hanneman v. Gratz 211 N.W. 961 Minn. 1927
It is entirely unlike the schemes and palpable efforts to evade the law which were considered in State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52 , ; State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165; State v. Ogden, 154 Minn. 425 , ; State v. Nordstrom, 169 Minn. 214 , .
State v. Nordstrom 210 N.W. 1001 Minn. 1926
State v. Nordstrom 210 N.W. 1001 Minn. 1926
State v. Gopher T. & R. Co. 146 Minn. 52 , (certificates promising share in profits in consideration of services); State v. Summerland, 150 Minn. 266 , (“Units” entitling owner to beneficial interest); State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165 (“investment contract”); State v. Ogden, 154 Minn. 425 , 191 N. W.
State v. Bushard 205 N.W. 370 Minn. 1925
State v. Bushard 205 N.W. 370 Minn. 1925
It was quite as much an investment contract as those involved in State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. 146 Minn. 52 , , and State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95 , , 27 A. L. R. 1165, the two leading' cases, or the so-called “units” involved in State v. Summerland, 150 Minn. 266 , , or the “statement and purchase” giving certain “units” in oil lands, involved in State v. Ogden, 154 Minn. 425 , 191 N
Reilly v. Clyne 234 P. 35 Ariz. 1925
State v. Summerland 193 N.W. 699 Minn. 1923