Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kolander, 52 N.W.2d 458.

53 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Nowacki 880 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Nowacki 880 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
see State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 221-22, (stating that the rationale for the rule prohibiting the admissibility of polygraph-related evidence is that polygraph examination does not have “such scientific and psychological accuracy, nor its operators such sureness of interpretation of results shown therefrom, as to justify
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
and must exclude every other reasonable conclusion except that of the guilt of the defendant.” State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 216-17 , -62 (1952), quoted in Al-Naseer, d at 475 .
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
236 Minn. 209, 221-22 , (emphasis added).
State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
Explained State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
Consistently, in State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 216-17 , -63 (1952), we explained that the district court properly instructed the jury that “to warrant a finding of guilty on any of the material elements of the crime charged based on circumstantial evidence the facts proven by circumstantial evidence must be consistent with each other, they must
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Polygraph examinations often are used by law enforcement for investigatory purposes and, consequently, “may frequently lead to confessions or the discovery of facts which may ultimately lead to *425 the solution of many crimes.” State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 221
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
Minnesota adopted Frye in State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 221-22
State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 217-18
State v. Klawitter 518 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1994
Hanson v. Brothers and One, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hanson v. Brothers and One, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 221 , (interpreting legislative history).
State v. Schaeffer 452 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Schaeffer 452 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Perry, 274 Minn. at 13 , d at 580 (quoting State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 221 , ).
State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
State v. Schwartz 447 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1989
State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 220-22 , -66 (1952); State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1, 12-13
Followed State v. Schwartz 447 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1989
2248 , 90 L.Ed.2d 694 (1986); Mack, d at 768 (hypnotically induced testimony); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 220 , (lie detector tests).
Alexander v. Eilers 422 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Alexander v. Eilers 422 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The Minnesota Supreme Court has acknowledged the importance of the polygraph as an investigatory tool: [Use of the polygraph] may frequently lead to confessions or the discovery of facts which may ultimately lead to the solution of many crimes * * State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 221
State v. Erickson 403 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Erickson 403 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Anderson, 261 Minn. 431, 437 , (citing State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , ).
State v. Grilli 369 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Grilli 369 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 224
State v. MacK 292 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1980
State v. MacK 292 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1980
7 State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 220-21 , -65 (1952); State v. Goblirsch, 309 Minn. 401 , State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514
State v. Goblirsch 246 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 1976
State v. Goblirsch 246 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 1976
State v. Simonson, 298 Minn. 235 , State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1 , State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209
State v. Simonson 214 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1974
State v. Simonson 214 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1974
See, State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1 , State v. Anderson, 261 Minn. 431 , State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209
State v. Hansen 174 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1970
State v. Hansen 174 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1970
Co. v. Mickelson (8 Cir.) 235 F. (2d) 425; State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N. W. (2d) 458 .
State v. Russell 164 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1969
State v. Russell 164 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1969
State v. Sheltrey, 100 Minn. 107 , ; State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N. W. (2d) 458 .
State v. Perry 142 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1966
State v. Perry 142 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1966
State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39 , 41 N. W. (2d) 313 , 15 A. L. R. (2d) 1137; State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N. W. (2d) 458 ; LeFevre v. State, 242 Wis.
State v. Webber 123 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1963
State v. Webber 123 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1963
State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N. W. (2d) 458 ; State v. Kaster, 211 Minn. 119 , ; State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543 , ; State v. Larson, 207 Minn. 515 , .
State v. Valdez 371 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1962
State v. Anderson 113 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1962
State v. Anderson 113 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1962
In State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N. W. (2d) 458 , we held that it was reversible error to permit the state to show defendant’s refusal to take such test.
State v. Ewing 84 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1957
State v. Ewing 84 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1957
He correctly advised them with reference to circumstantial evidence in accordance with the law as stated in State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N. W. (2d) 458 , and State v. Brady, 244 Minn. 455 , 70 N. W. (2d) 449 .
State v. Brady 70 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 1955