Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thompson, 62 N.W.2d 512.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rosecution],” or (2) “the offense charged in the second [prosecution], with respect to all its essential elements, was included in the greater offense charged in the first [prosecution] and there was a conviction upon such greater offense, or if under the first [prosecution] for the greater offense, there might have been a valid conviction of the second or lessor offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin 887 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
See State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59
State v. Sahr 812 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2012
State v. Larson 605 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2000
State v. Larson 605 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2000
241 Minn. 59, 69-70 , -21 (1954) (Gallagher, J., dissenting).
State v. Rosenfeld 540 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Rosenfeld 540 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-27 (Minn.1985) (declining to give state constitutional double jeopardy provision broader scope than its federal counterpart); State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59, 66 , (predecessor statute to Minn.Stat.
In re the Welfare of P.L.M. 375 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Fuller 374 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1985
State v. Kjeldahl 278 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1979
State v. Kjeldahl 278 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1979
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449 , State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59
State v. McDonald 215 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1974
State v. McDonald 215 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1974
State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59 , State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44
Lupino v. State 171 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1969
Lupino v. State 171 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1969
See, also, State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59 , 62 N. W. (2d) 512 ; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Boswell v. Tahash 154 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1967
State Ex Rel. Boswell v. Tahash 154 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1967
609.035 and 609.04, pointed out that State v. Fredlund, supra; State v. Winger, 204 Minn. 164 , , 119 A. L. R. 1202; and State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59 , 62 N. W. (2d) 512 , were all based on lack of violation of the double-jeopardy clause of our constitution, as amplified by statute.
State v. Minton 149 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1967
State v. Minton 149 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1967
4 Section 609.585 expressly provides: “A prosecution for or conviction of the crime of burglary is not a bar to conviction of any other crime committed on entering or while in the building entered.” See, also, State v. Hackett, 47 Minn. 425 , ; State v. Robinson, 262 Minn. 79 , 114 N. W. (2d) 737 , certiorari denied, 371 U. S. 815 , 83 S. Ct. 26 , 9 L. ed. (2d) 56; State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59 , 62 N. W. (2d) 512 .
State v. Johnson 141 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1966
State v. Johnson 141 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1966
In State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59 , 62 N. W. (2d) 512 , defendant, as a public officer, was acquitted on a charge of receiving public money.
State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
State v. Sweeney, 180 Minn. 450, 455 , , 73 A. L. R. 380; State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59, 67 , 62 N. W. (2d) 512, 519 ; State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112, 118 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267, 271 ; State v. Stuart, 203 Minn. 301, 306 , ; State v. Yurkiewicz, 212 Minn. 208, 210 , 3 N. W. (2d) 775, 776 ; People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 305 , 61 N. E. 286, 299 , 62 L. R. A. 193.
City of Bloomington v. Kossow 131 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1964
City of Bloomington v. Kossow 131 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1964
See, State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44 , , 113 A. L. R. 215; State v. Winger, 204 Minn. 164 , , 119 A. L. R. 1202; State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59 , 62 N. W. (2d) 512 .
State v. Kline 124 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1963
State v. Kline 124 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1963
10 State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59 , 62 N. W. (2d) 512 .
State v. Pederson 115 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1962
State v. Pederson 115 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1962
court said that where the judgment is attacked by way of coram nobis the facts constituting a defense “must be set forth in such detail as to enable the court to determine whether it is meritorious and sufficient.” The claim of defendant that he has twice been placed in jeopardy by the proceedings following this court’s remand for further sentencing is adequately disposed of in State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59, 62, 67 , 62 N. W. (2d) 512, 516, 519 , where this court said: “* * * In applying the p
State v. Robinson 114 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1962
State v. Robinson 114 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1962
State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44, 47 , , 113 A. L. R. 215; State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59 , 62 N. W. (2d) 512 .
State v. DePauw 74 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1955
State v. DePauw 74 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1955
Paul v. Greene, 238 Minn. 202 , 56 N. W. (2d) 423 , 40 A. L. R. (2d) 812; State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59 , 62 N. W. (2d) 512 .