Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Simonsen, 89 N.W.2d 910.

36 citing documents.

State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315, 328 , the Minnesota Supreme Court described the foundation necessary for layperson opinion testimony of intoxication to be admissible as “observation of manner of walking and standing, manner of speech, appearance of eyes and face, and odor, if any, upon such person’s breath.” When sufficie
Holbrook v. State Gambling Control Board 532 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Holbrook v. State Gambling Control Board 532 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315, 327-28
County of Wright v. Kennedy 415 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
County of Wright v. Kennedy 415 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315, 328
LaPanta v. Heidelberger 392 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
LaPanta v. Heidelberger 392 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315, 324
Johnson Building Co. v. River Bluff Development Co. 374 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Johnson Building Co. v. River Bluff Development Co. 374 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Tonka Tours, (citing State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315, 324 , ) (trial court’s findings on disputed questions of fact will not be upset merely because a reviewing court may view the evidence differently).
State, City of Eagan v. Elmourabit 373 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1985
State, City of Eagan v. Elmourabit 373 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1985
After noting that the replay of the video tape showed defendant successfully performing the tests, the court of appeals stated: “This documentary evidence has the same effect as positive testimony of an unim-peached witness.” The court then quoted from State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315, 323 , that “[positive testimony of unimpeached witnesses cannot be disregarded when there is no real basis in the evidence for a finding that such evidence is either improbable or inconsistent.” The court of appea
Tonka Tours, Inc. v. Chadima 372 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1985
Tonka Tours, Inc. v. Chadima 372 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1985
See State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315, 324
State v. Elmourabit 356 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Elmourabit 356 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315
Johnson v. State, Department of Public Safety 351 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1984
Johnson v. State, Department of Public Safety 351 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1984
In one of these cases, State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315, 328 , we stated that “traditionally the foundation required before an opinion regarding intoxication can be given has been testimony concerning observation of manner of walking and standing, manner of speech, appearance of eyes and face, and odor, if any, upon such person’s breath.” Citing
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen 342 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1984
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen 342 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1984
State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315
Bisbee v. Ruppert 235 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1975
Bisbee v. Ruppert 235 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1975
See, State v. Peterson, 266 Minn. 77 , State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315 , Clarke v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. 92; Minn. 418
State v. Hicks 222 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1974
State v. Hicks 222 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1974
3 In one of these cases, State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315, 328 , we stated that “traditionally the foundation required before an opinion regarding intoxication can be given has been testimony concerning observation of manner of walking and standing, manner of speech, appearance of eyes and face, and odor, if any, upon such person’s breath.” Citin
Mjos Ex Rel. Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake 178 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1970
Mjos Ex Rel. Mjos v. Village of Howard Lake 178 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1970
5 See, State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315 , 89 N. W. (2d) 910 ; Trail v. Village of Elk River, 286 Minn. 380 , 175 N. W. (2d) 916 ; Note, 46 Minn. L. Rev. 169 , 192.
Trail v. Village of Elk River 175 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1970
Trail v. Village of Elk River 175 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1970
State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315, 328 , 89 N. W. (2d) 910, 918 ; State v. Peterson, 266 Minn. 77 , 123 N. W. (2d) 177 ; Clarke v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. 92 Minn. 418 , .
State v. Bystrom 156 N.W.2d 234 Minn. 1968
State v. Bystrom 156 N.W.2d 234 Minn. 1968
“A. I do not believe that the diabetes in itself would have caused that, no. I have an opinion to that extent.” Defendant relies on State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315 , 89 N. W. (2d) 910 .
State v. Peterson 123 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1963
State v. Peterson 123 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1963
3 State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315 , 89 N. W. (2d) 910 ; Clarke v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. 92 Minn. 418 , ; cf. Sullivan v. Brown, 225 Minn. 524 , 31 N. W. (2d) 439 ; In re Estate of Cunningham, 219 Minn. 80 , 17 N. W. (2d) 85 .
State v. McCarthy 104 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1960
State v. McCarthy 104 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1960
*30 In State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315, 325 , 89 N. W. (2d) 910, 917 , we upheld a Minneapolis ordinance which provided that “The refusal of the defendant to permit a chemical analysis to be made of his blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substance at the time of his arrest shall not be admissible in evidence against him upon trial.” While this latter pr
McNab v. Jeppesen 102 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1960
McNab v. Jeppesen 102 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1960
State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315 , 89 N. W. (2d) 910 .