Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Becker, 42 N.W.2d 704.

26 citing documents.

Bisbee v. Ruppert 235 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1975
Bisbee v. Ruppert 235 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1975
4 See, e. g., Kramer v. Kramer, 282 Minn. 58 , Ellwein v. Holmes, 243 Minn. 397 , State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377
Jangula v. Klocek 170 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1969
Jangula v. Klocek 170 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1969
State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704 ; Hallada v. G. N. Ry.
State v. Stevens 157 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1968
State v. Stevens 157 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1968
State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704 ; State v. E. A. H. 246 Minn. 299 , 75 N. W. (2d) 195 .
Aanenson v. Engelson 124 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1963
Aanenson v. Engelson 124 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1963
d in this section, or turn a vehicle to enter a private road or driveway or otherwise turn a vehicle from a dir'ect course or move right or left upon a highway unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only * * * after giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.” 3 State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704 ; Lee v. Lee, 248 Minn. 496 , 80 N. W. (2d) 529 .
State v. Polk 116 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1962
State v. Polk 116 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1962
Mar-kle v. Haase, 245 Minn. 520, 527 , 73 N. W. (2d) 362, 366 ; State v. Brady, 244 Minn. 455, 464 , 70 N. W. (2d) 449, 454 ; State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174, 181 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704, 709 .
Hammersten v. Reiling 115 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1962
Hammersten v. Reiling 115 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1962
Co. 247 Minn. 368 , 77 N. W. (2d) 433 , 58 A. L. R. (2d) 921; Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , 65 N. W. (2d) 614 ; Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 ; State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704 ; Brecht v. Town of Bergen, 182 Minn. 603 , .
Lee v. Lee 80 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1957
Lee v. Lee 80 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1957
State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704 ; see, Nubbe v. Hardy Continental Hotel System, 225 Minn. 496 , 31 N. W. (2d) 332 .
State v. Stevens 80 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1956
State v. Stevens 80 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1956
In State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174, 179 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704, 708 , we said: “It has often been held that evidence of this kind is admissible to show the intimacy and disposition of the parties as bearing upon the probability of intercourse at the times stated in the complaint.
State v. EAH 75 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1956
State v. E. A. H. 75 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1956
State v. EAH 75 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1956
See, State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , 42 N.W.
State v. E. A. H. 75 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1956
The appellant points to the fact that the trial judge in his memorandum stated “Clear and convincing proof is required to convict,” and that “That degree of proof was certainly not established here.” She contends that the correct degree of proof to be applied in a paternity case is a “fair preponderance of the evidence.” See, State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704 .
Burns v. Kvernstoen 74 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1955
Burns v. Kvernstoen 74 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1955
Subsequently, the court in its instructions admonished the jury to “pay no attention to anything that you might have heard outside the jury box, but * * * consider only the evidence that you have heard under oath from the witness stand.” See, State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704 .
Cameron v. Evans 62 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1954
Cameron v. Evans 62 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1954
12 State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704 ; Honan v. Kinney, 205 Minn. 485 , ; Doody v. St.
Maher v. Roisner 57 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1953
Maher v. Roisner 57 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1953
Orchard v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 236 Minn. 42 , 51 N. W. (2d) 645 ; State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704 ; Rom v. Calhoun, 227 Minn. 143 , 34 N. W. (2d) 359 ; Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182 , 17 N. W. (2d) 324 .