Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Upson, 201 N.W. 913.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A fact is relevant if, when taken alone or in connection with other fact s, it warrants a jury in drawing a logical inference assisting, even thou gh remotely, the determination of the issue in question.” (citing State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9, 12-13, 201 N.W.
State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9, 12-13 , 201 N.W.
State v. Schulz 691 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2005
State v. Schulz 691 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2005
State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9, 12-13 , 201 N.W.
Harden Ex Rel. Harden v. Seventh Rib, Inc. 247 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1976
Harden Ex Rel. Harden v. Seventh Rib, Inc. 247 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1976
Co. 161 Minn. 45 , State v. Upson, 162; Minn. 9
State v. Drews 144 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1966
State v. Drews 144 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1966
State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , .
Boland v. Morrill 132 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1965
Boland v. Morrill 132 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1965
(Perm, ed.) p. 443; State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , ; 7 Dunnell, Dig.
State v. Wofford 114 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1962
State v. Wofford 114 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1962
1 State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , ; State v. Bergeson, 203 Minn. 88 , ; Vietor v. Costello, 203 Minn. 41 , ; State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , .
State v. Arradondo 110 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1961
State v. Arradondo 110 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1961
State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , ; State v. Gleeman, 170 Minn. 197 , ; State v. Chick, 192 Minn. 539 , .
State v. Quinn 255 N.W. 488 Minn. 1934
State v. Quinn 255 N.W. 488 Minn. 1934
As far as the motion presents an issue as to the credibility of Kremer’s statements, the decision below is binding upon us under such decisions as State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , .
State v. Sweeney 231 N.W. 225 Minn. 1930
State v. Sweeney 231 N.W. 225 Minn. 1930
State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Whipple, 143 Minn. 403 , ; State v. Friedman, 146 Minn. 373 , , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Friend, 151 Minn. 138 , ; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538 , ; State v. Clark, 155 Minn. 117 , ; State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , ; State v. Eames, 163 Minn. 249 , ; State v. Sabatini, 171 Minn. 137 , ; State, v. Kiewel, 173 Minn. 473 , .
State v. Stephon 228 N.W. 335 Minn. 1929
Stephon v. Jirik 228 N.W. 336 Minn. 1929
Stephon v. Jirik 228 N.W. 336 Minn. 1929
On that point the case is ruled by the decision in State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , .
State v. Stephon 228 N.W. 335 Minn. 1929
Denial of the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is ruled by State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , .
State v. Alexander Graham 222 N.W. 909 Minn. 1929
State v. Alexander Graham 222 N.W. 909 Minn. 1929
The subject is quite fully covered in State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , .
State v. Johnson 217 N.W. 683 Minn. 1928
State v. Johnson 217 N.W. 683 Minn. 1928
State v. Peterson, 98 Minn. 210 , ; State v. Gesell, 137 Minn. 43 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Clark, 155 Minn. 117 , ; State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , ; State v. McGraw, 163 Minn. 154 , ; State v. Lipman, 163 Minn. 431 , 204 N. W, 163; State v. Huber, 171 Minn. 429 , .
City of Duluth v. Nordin 208 N.W. 189 Minn. 1926
City of Duluth v. Nordin 208 N.W. 189 Minn. 1926
State v. Lipman, 163 Minn. 431 , ; State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , ; 33 C. J. 760.
State v. Eames 203 N.W. 769 Minn. 1925
State v. Eames 203 N.W. 769 Minn. 1925
That evidence of other offenses may be received when it tends to show a general plan or scheme to violate the law in respect to the offense with which defendant is charged is established by a long line of decisions begin *252 ning with State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , , and ending with State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , .
State v. Horr 203 N.W. 979 Minn. 1925
State v. Horr 203 N.W. 979 Minn. 1925
313 , and cases there cited; State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 8 , , and cases there cited.