Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co., 281 N.W. 753.

43 citing documents.

State v. Domke 392 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Domke 392 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co., 203 Minn. 438, 440 , 281 N.W.
State v. Munnell 344 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Munnell 344 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
810 ; State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co., 203 Minn. 438 , 281 N.W.
State v. Ray 193 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 1971
State v. Ray 193 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 1971
Paul v. Franklin, 286 Minn. 194 , cf. State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438, 440 , State v. Target Stores, Inc. 279 Minn. 447, 471
City of Saint Paul v. Franklin 175 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1970
City of Saint Paul v. Franklin 175 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1970
Paul v. Morris, 258 Minn. 467 , 104 N. W. (2d) 902 ; State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174 , 52 N. W. (2d) *197 409; State v. Eich, 204 Minn. 134 , ; State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , .
State v. Peterfeso 169 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1969
State v. Peterfeso 169 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1969
Connally v. General Const. Co. 269 U. S. 385, 391 , 46 S. Ct. 126, 127 , 70 L. ed. 322, 328; Jordan v. De George, 341 U. S. 223, 231 , 71 S. Ct. 703, 708 , 95 L. ed. 886, 892; State v. Parker, 183 Minn. 588 , ; State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , ; State v. Eich, 204 Minn. 134 , ; State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263 , 95 N. W. (2d) 6 .
State v. Target Stores, Inc. 156 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1968
State v. Target Stores, Inc. 156 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1968
52 *472 In State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , , for example, this court invalidated a penal statute which required purchasers of certain farm products for manufacture or resale to deduct from the purchase price paid the “actual cost of transportation by wagon or truck” from the point of purchase to the locality of manufacture or sale, but the stat
State v. Mathiasen 141 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1966
State v. Mathiasen 141 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1966
State v. Sobelman, supra; State v. Cantrell, supra; State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , ; State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174 , 52 N. W. (2d) 409 .
State v. Kuluvar 123 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1963
State v. Kuluvar 123 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1963
State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174 , 52 N. W. (2d) 409 ; State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , .
State v. Dietz 119 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1963
State v. Dietz 119 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1963
5 In 16A C. J. S., Constitutional Law, § 564, the rule is stated as follows: “Equal protection of the laws is not denied by a statute prescribing the punishment to be inflicted on a person convicted of crime, unless it prescribes different punishments for the same acts committed under the same circumstances by persons in like situation.” In State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , , we exhaustively examined this and other related questions.
State v. McCorvey 114 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1962
State v. McCorvey 114 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1962
State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , .
State v. Oman 110 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1961
State v. Oman 110 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1961
“In summary, then, we hold that these statutes, applied according to the proper standard for judging obscenity, do not offend constitutional safeguards against convictions based upon protected material, or fail to give men in acting adequate notice of what is prohibited.” Mr. Chief Justice Gallagher in State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438, 440 , , following decisions of the United States Supreme Court said: “The uncertainty hit at is not the difficulty of ascertaining whether *
City of St. Paul v. Morris 104 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1960
State v. Moseng 95 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1959
State v. Moseng 95 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1959
See State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , , and cases cited, for a full discussion of the required standards.
State v. Hayes 70 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1955
State v. Hayes 70 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1955
Without restating them in detail, they may be summarized as follows: To satisfy the due process clauses, an offense must be declared in words of determinative significance so that a man may know which acts it is his duty to avoid (State v. Parker, 183 Minn. 588 , ; State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , ); and when resort to established rules of construction will reveal that words used in a penal statute have acquired a meaning based upon reasonably definite standards by virtue
State v. Reynolds 66 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1954
State v. Reynolds 66 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1954
This court held in State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438, 439, 440 , , that “Laws which create crimes, ought to be so explicit in themselves, or by reference to some other standard, that all men, subject to their penalties, may know what acts it is their duty to avoid.” No one would contend that this is not a just and fair test.
State v. Suess 52 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1952
State v. Suess 52 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1952
State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , .
State v. Lanesboro Produce & Hatchery Co. 21 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1946
State v. Lanesboro Produce & Hatchery Co. 21 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1946
Does the decision in State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co., 203 Minnesota, 438, , render said law unconstitutional as to the crime charged herein by said infoi'mation?” Under the heading “Assignments of Error,” defendant makes this statement: “* * * the basic contentions of the defendant are: This case comes within the rule of State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co., 203 Minn. 438
State v. Bolsinger 21 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1946
State v. Bolsinger 21 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1946
Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49 , 11 N. W. (2d) 776 ; State v. Eich, 204 Minn. 134 , ; State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , ; Connally v. General Const. Co. 269 U. S. 385 , 46 S. Ct. 126 , 70 L. ed. 322; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216 , 34 S. Ct. 853 , 58 L. ed. 1284; Rottschaefer, Constitutional Law, pp. 763-767.
Anderson v. Burnquist 11 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1943
Anderson v. Burnquist 11 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1943
See also Connally v. General Const. Co. supra,; State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , ; State v. Parker, 183 Minn. 588 , .
Briggs v. Minnesota Delta Upsilon Club 2 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 1942
Briggs v. Minnesota Delta Upsilon Club 2 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 1942
This construction does not leave the meaning so vague as to render the statute void for uncertainty, because the kind of activity regulated is such that “the use of general and flexible terms in fixing the standard is inescapable.” State v. N. W. Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438, 440 , ; State v. Eich, *19 204 Minn. 134 , .
Walker v. Corwin 300 N.W. 800 Minn. 1941
Walker v. Corwin 300 N.W. 800 Minn. 1941
State v. Northwest Poultry Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , 281 N.W.
State v. Eich 282 N.W. 810 Minn. 1938
State v. Eich 282 N.W. 810 Minn. 1938
The principles of law applicable in determining whether a statute, as applied to a particular defendant, is unconstitutional for indefiniteness have been discussed recently by this court in State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , .