Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Tennyson, 2 N.W.2d 833.

41 citing documents.

Clark v. Ritchie 787 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2010
Clark v. Ritchie 787 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2010
State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158, 161-62
Heidbreder v. Carton 636 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Heidbreder v. Carton 636 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
6a (2000) (adoption statute makes parent’s consent irrevocable “except upon order of court of competent jurisdiction after written findings that consent was obtained by fraud.”) Moreover, it is not for this court to read an exception into the statute, see, e.g., State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158, 161-62 , (“Where a statute is couched in broad and comprehensive language admitting of no exceptions, the court is not justified in engraft-ing thereon exceptions, however much it may deem the public wel
Lilly v. City of Minneapolis 527 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lilly v. City of Minneapolis 527 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158, 161-62 , (court will not engraft exceptions onto a statute that has broad and comprehensive language).
Novack v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Novack v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158, 161-62 , (citation omitted).
In Re the Welfare of D.M.K. 343 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Welfare of D.M.K. 343 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158
Tucker v. State 245 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1976
Tucker v. State 245 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1976
State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158
State, Village of New Hope v. Eric Duplessie 231 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1975
State, Village of New Hope v. Eric Duplessie 231 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1975
As this court stated in State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158, 165 , : “* * * Everything said, written, or done by any conspirator in execution or furtherance of the common purpose of a conspiracy to commit a crime is deemed to be the act of every one of them and is admissible against each.” This exception to the hearsay rule is predicated upon the fact
State v. Swyningan 229 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1975
State v. Swyningan 229 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1975
State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158
County of Freeborn v. Bryson 210 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1973
County of Freeborn v. Bryson 210 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1973
See, State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158, 161
State v. Jensen 184 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1971
State v. Jensen 184 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1971
A corollary, as stated in State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158, 162 , 2 N. W. (2d) 833, 836 , is that “[w]here the acts of several participants are declared by statute to constitute separate and distinct crimes, the participants guilty of one crime are not accomplices of those who are guilty of a separate and distinct crime.” So tested, a person who feloniously receives stolen go
State v. Krampotich 163 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1968
State v. Shevchuk 163 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1968
State v. Shevchuk 163 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1968
As we held in State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158, 166 , 2 N. W. (2d) 833, 837 , 139 A. L. R. 987, 993, it is proper to refuse a requested instruction to a lesser offense “if the evidence is unequivocal so as to permit only a finding of guilty or not guilty of the crime charged.” See, also, State v. Norlander, 277 Minn. 436 , 152 N. W. (2d) 774 .
State v. Krampotich 163 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1968
As we held in State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158, 166 , , 139 A.L.R.
State v. Norlander 152 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1967
State v. Norlander 152 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1967
See, State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158 , 2 N. W. (2d) 833 , 139 A. L. R. 987, and cases cited; State v. Coon, 170 Minn. 343 , , and cases cited.
State v. Thompson 139 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1966
State v. Thompson 139 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1966
It was not therefore necessary to prove the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, prima facie proof was all that was required to let in evidence of a coconspirator’s acts and declaration, done or made in furtherance of the common purpose, to implicate any other coconspirator.” The same rule is followed in State v. Evans, 88 Minn. 262 , ; State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158 , 2 N. W. (2d) 833 , 139 A. L. R. 987; State v. Connelly, 249 Minn. 429 , 82 N. W. (2d) 489 ; State v. Guy, 259 Minn. 67 , 105
Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout 124 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1963
Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout 124 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1963
In State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158, 161 , 2 N. W. (2d) 833, 835 , 139 A. L. R. 987, this court said: “* * * It is for the legislature and not the court to create exceptions, if there are to be any.
Nathan v. St. Paul Mutual Insurance 86 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1957
Nathan v. St. Paul Mutual Insurance 86 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1957
(3 ed.) § 3411a; State v. Zabrocki, 194 Minn. 346 , ; State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158 , 2 N. W. (2d) 833 , 139 A. L. R. 987; 4 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 1079; National Ben Franklin Fire Ins.
Holen v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission 84 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1957
Holen v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission 84 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1957
Co. supra; State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158 , 2 N. W. (2d) 833 , 139 A. L. R. 987.
State v. Connelly 82 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1957
State v. Connelly 82 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1957
7 State v. Kahner, 217 Minn. 574, 581 , 15 N. W. (2d) 105, 109 , certiorari denied, 323 U. S. 768 , 65 S. Ct. 121 , 89 L. ed. 614; see, State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158 , 2 N. W. (2d) 833 , 139 A. L. R. 987; State v. Dunn, 140 Minn. 308 , ; 5 Dunnell, Dig.
True v. Older 34 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1948
State v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 25 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1946
State v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 25 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1946
In State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158, 164 , 2 N. W. (2d) 833, 836 , 139 A. L. R. 987.
State v. Kahner 15 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1944
State v. Kahner 15 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1944
State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158 , 2 N. W. (2d) 833 , 139 A. L. R. 987; State v. Dunn, 140 Minn. 308 , .