Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Nelson, 181 N.W. 850.

73 citing documents.

State v. Glazer 223 N.W. 769 Minn. 1929
State v. Fournier, 108 Minn. 402 , *444 ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , ; State v. Abdo, 165 Minn. 440 , .
State v. Shepard 214 N.W. 280 Minn. 1927
State v. Shepard 214 N.W. 280 Minn. 1927
The historical development of our homicide statute is traced in State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285, 291 , , where it is said: “In other words, since the penal code murder in the third degree may be committed in two ways.
State v. Abdo 206 N.W. 933 Minn. 1926
State v. Abdo 206 N.W. 933 Minn. 1926
See State v. Miller, 151 Minn. 386 , ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , ; State v. Taylor, 144 Minn. 377 , ; State v. Friend, 151 Minn. 138 , ; State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , .
State v. Shansy 204 N.W. 467 Minn. 1925
State v. Shansy 204 N.W. 467 Minn. 1925
See State v. Johnson, 114 Minn. 493 , ; State v. Taylor, 144 Minn. 377 , ; State v. Morgan, 146 Minn. 197 , ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , .
State v. Eames 203 N.W. 769 Minn. 1925
State v. Eames 203 N.W. 769 Minn. 1925
The suggestion that this line of proof tended to show the trait of character of the defendant indicated by the crime charged is fully answered in State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285, 297, 298 , .
State v. McTague 197 N.W. 962 Minn. 1924
State v. McTague 197 N.W. 962 Minn. 1924
The general question of the degrees of homicide had recent consideration in State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , .
State v. Weltz 193 N.W. 42 Minn. 1923
State v. Weltz 193 N.W. 42 Minn. 1923
Speaking of our own statute, in State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296 , , it was said it was intended to cover cases where reckless, mischievous or wanton acts were committed without special regard to their effect on a particular person,- but with a reckless-disregard of whether they injured one person or another; and in *146 State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , , tbat it involves an unintentional killing without a special design upon a particular person by an act eminently dangerous to others, evincing a min
State v. Clark 192 N.W. 737 Minn. 1923
State v. Friend 191 N.W. 926 Minn. 1923
State v. Miller 186 N.W. 803 Minn. 1922
State v. Miller 186 N.W. 803 Minn. 1922
That evidence of such character is not competent was held in State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , , a homicide case, and has been held in other classes of clases.
State v. Friend 186 N.W. 241 Minn. 1922
State v. Friend 186 N.W. 241 Minn. 1922
State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , .
City of St. Paul v. Harris 184 N.W. 840 Minn. 1921
City of St. Paul v. Harris 184 N.W. 840 Minn. 1921
This rule was considered and applied in the recent case of State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , , where the authorities were considered and the reason for the rule indicated.
State v. Townley 182 N.W. 773 Minn. 1921
State v. Townley 182 N.W. 773 Minn. 1921
Goss v. Goss, 102 Minn. 346 , ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , ; Underhill, Crim.