DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schabert, 24 N.W.2d 846.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Olsen 258 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Olsen 258 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 1977
    E. g., State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261
  • State v. Hawkins 260 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Hawkins 260 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1977
    State v. Homme, 226 Minn. 83 , ; State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , , 31 Minn.L.Rev.
  • State v. Duncan 250 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Duncan 250 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1977
    Furthermore, applying the standards set forth in State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846 , and State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 , this court will, upon review of the evidence in the case of a claim that it was insufficient to support the verdict, take the most favorable view of the state’s testimony to which it is reasonably susceptible.
  • State v. Coy 200 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Coy 200 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1972
    State v. Darrow, 287 Minn. 230 , State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295
  • State v. Combs 195 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Combs 195 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1972
    *321 “We are also governed by the rule that on appeal this court must take the evidence most favorable to the state and must assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved anything which contradicted their testimony.” See, also, State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 186 , State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261, 268
  • State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
    State v. Homme, 226 Minn. 83 , 32 N. W. (2d) 151 ; State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846 , 31 Minn. L. Rev. 375 .
  • State v. Darrow 177 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Darrow 177 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1970
    State v. Ellingson, supra; State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846 ; State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 .
  • State v. Ellingson 167 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Ellingson 167 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1969
    Furthermore, applying the standards set forth in State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846 , and State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 , this court will, upon review of the evidence in the case of a claim that it was insufficient to support the verdict, take the most favorable view of the state’s testimony to which it is reasonably susceptible.
  • In Re Welfare of Hitzemann 161 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1968
  • In Re Welfare of Hitzemann 161 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1968
    See, State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N.W.
  • State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
    State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490 ; State v. Homme, 226 Minn. 83 , 32 N. W. (2d) 151 ; State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846 , 31 Minn. L. Rev. 375 .
  • State v. Thompson 139 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Thompson 139 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1966
    State v. Homme, 226 Minn. 83 , 32 N. W. (2d) 151 ; State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846 , 31 Minn. L. Rev. 375 .
  • State v. Kline 124 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1963
  • State v. Kline 124 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1963
    2 State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517 , 57 N. W. (2d) 635 ; State v. Lux, 235 Minn. 181 , 50 N. W. (2d) 290 ; State v. Gavle, 234 Minn. 186 , 48 N. W. (2d) 44 ; State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846 ; State v. Waddell, 187 Minn. 191 , .
  • State v. Armstrong 101 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1960
  • State v. Armstrong 101 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1960
    This court in State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261, 268 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846, 850 , held that the appellate court upon review of the evi *306 dence on a claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict “must take the most favorable view of the state’s testimony of which it is reasonably susceptible, and it must be assumed that the jury believed the state
  • State v. Haynes 80 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1957
  • State v. Haynes 80 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1957
    1 See, State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261, 268 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846, 850 ; State v. Homme, 226 Minn. 83, 88 , 32 N. W. (2d) 151, 154 .
  • State v. Pankratz 57 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1953
  • State v. Pankratz 57 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1953
    * * In the light of the verdict of the jury, we must take the most favorable view of the state’s testimony of which it is reasonably susceptible, and it must be assumed that the jury believed the state’s testimony and disbelieved that which contradicted it.” State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261, 268 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846, 850 .
  • State v. Waltz 54 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1952
  • State v. Waltz 54 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1952
    State v. Gavle, 234 Minn. 186 , 48 N. W. (2d) 44 ; State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846 ; see, State v. Ward, 225 Minn. 208 , 30 N. W. (2d) 349 .
  • State v. Homme 32 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 1948
  • State v. Homme 32 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 1948
    State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846 .