Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Moseng, 95 N.W.2d 6.

89 citing documents.

State v. Bissonette 445 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Bissonette 445 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Although the Minnesota Supreme Court, in State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , applied the rule of strict construction for penal statutes, certain traffic violations (including improper lane changes) have since been changed from misdemeanor crimes to petty misdemeanors.
State v. Lewandowski 443 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Lewandowski 443 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Haas, 280 Minn. 197, 200 , State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , People v. Rehkopf 422 Mich.
State v. Hyland 431 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hyland 431 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 268
Norman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 404 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Norman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 404 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263
State v. Skinner 403 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Skinner 403 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 268
Hintz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 364 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hintz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 364 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263
State v. Green 351 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Green 351 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See generally, State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263
Merz v. Leitch 342 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1984
Merz v. Leitch 342 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1984
Relying on State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 268 , he stated: Since there is no express statutory requirement for furnishing notice of the time of a meeting, no such requirement can exist except by implication.
Novak v. Kirby 287 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1979
Novak v. Kirby 287 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1979
See e. g., Martinka v. Hoffmann, 214 Minn. 346 , State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263
State v. Larson Transfer & Storage, Inc. 246 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1976
State v. Larson Transfer & Storage, Inc. 246 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1976
See, State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263
Reutzel v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 186 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1971
Reutzel v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 186 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1971
uspend the license of “a habitual violator of the traffic laws” and to do so “without preliminary hearing upon a showing by department records or other sufficient evidence.” We said ( 267 Minn. 317 , 126 N. W. [2d] 784): “* * * While the privilege [to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways] is a valuable one, and may not be unreasonably or arbitrarily taken away [citing State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263 , 95 N. W. (2d) 6 ], its enjoyment depends upon compliance with conditions prescribed
Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation 184 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1971
Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation 184 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1971
Cf. Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490 , 122 N. W. (2d) 631 ; State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263 , 95 N. W. (2d) 6 .
State v. Peterfeso 169 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1969
State v. Peterfeso 169 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1969
Connally v. General Const. Co. 269 U. S. 385, 391 , 46 S. Ct. 126, 127 , 70 L. ed. 322, 328; Jordan v. De George, 341 U. S. 223, 231 , 71 S. Ct. 703, 708 , 95 L. ed. 886, 892; State v. Parker, 183 Minn. 588 , ; State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , ; State v. Eich, 204 Minn. 134 , ; State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263 , 95 N. W. (2d) 6 .
State v. Dahlstrom 150 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1967
State v. Dahlstrom 150 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1967
State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174 , 52 N. W. (2d) 409 ; State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263 , 95 N. W. (2d) 6 ; State v. Walsh, 43 Minn. 444 , .
Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways 126 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1964
Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways 126 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1964
Of the total suspensions, 42,001 resulted from failure to comply with provisions of the Minnesota Safety Responsibility Act.” 5 Minn. Const. art. 1, § 7, provides in part: “No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law, and no person for the same offense shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment * * *.” 6 State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263 , 95 N. W. (2d) 6 .
Richfield Federation of Teachers v. Richfield Education Ass'n 115 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1962
Richfield Federation of Teachers v. Richfield Education Ass'n 115 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1962
With respect to a criminal statute, we held in State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , 95 N. W. (2d) 6 , 11: “Where failure of expression rather than ambiguity of expression concerning the elements of the statutory standard is the vice of the enactment, courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature.” We hold accordingly that the C
State v. Wofford 114 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1962
State v. Wofford 114 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1962
5 State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 ; State v. Haas, 69 S. D. 204, 8 N. W. (2d) 569 ; State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263 , 95 N. W. (2d) 6 .
State v. Oman 110 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1961
State v. Oman 110 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1961
We said recently in State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , 95 N. W. (2d) 6, 12 , that: “* * * Reasonable certainty, however, has been held sufficient.” We cannot agree that in the instant case defendant does not know of what he is accused by the information filed against him.
City of St. Paul v. Morris 104 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1960
State v. Hoben 98 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1959
State v. Hoben 98 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1959
In State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 271 , 95 N. W. (2d) 6, 12 , we said: “* * * Much has been said as to whether a license to operate a motor vehicle is a right or a privilege.