Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hoben, 98 N.W.2d 813.

44 citing documents.

State v. Kuhlman 729 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2007
State v. Kuhlman 729 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2007
We have applied the preemption doctrine in the context of traffic regulations in three principal cases, Olson, Duffy, and State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 486
State v. Kuhlman 722 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Kuhlman 722 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
The Act restricts a city’s power to enact traffic ordinances to “the limited local regulation the statute expressly permitted.” Mangold, 274 Minn. at 359 , d at 821 (discussing State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , ).
Village of Vadnais Heights v. Beardsley 207 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 1973
Village of Vadnais Heights v. Beardsley 207 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 1973
Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that the Hitzmann case did not overrule our decision in State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. *155 436
City of St. Paul v. Hitzmann 204 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 1973
City of St. Paul v. Hitzmann 204 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 1973
The defendant there complained that because the offense charged was a traffic violation under an ordinance substantially similar to the statute, the rule adopted in State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , required a jury trial notwithstanding the denial of that right by the amendment to § 488A.10, subd.
City of St. Paul v. Whidby 203 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1972
City of St. Paul v. Whidby 203 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1972
12 Cf. State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436
State v. Leininger 176 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1970
State v. Boucher 176 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1970
State v. Boucher 176 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1970
1 See, State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 , wherein we held that Minn. St.
State v. Leininger 176 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1970
In Minnesota, since State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 , a person charged with conduct violative of the Highway Traffic Regulation Act is entitled to a jury trial whether prosecuted under state statute or local ordinance.
Peterson v. Peterson 153 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1967
Peterson v. Peterson 153 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1967
See, State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 .
State v. Paulick 151 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 1967
State v. Paulick 151 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 1967
Whatever may be the reason, a number of recent cases demonstrate that the court no longer adheres to the view that 90 days in jail is not “a serious punishment.” The first of a number of landmark cases implementing the constitutional rights of defendants was State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 .
State Ex Rel. Duhn v. Tahash 147 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1966
State Ex Rel. Duhn v. Tahash 147 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1966
3), is still good law in the light of State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 , and the Aguilar decision, we do not decide.
State v. Gladden 144 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1966
State v. Gladden 144 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1966
In that case it was not necessary to determine whether a prosecution under a municipal traffic ordinance that comes within the rule of State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 , would bar a subsequent prosecution under a statute for another offense arising out of the same conduct.
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield 143 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1966
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield 143 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1966
A case discussed at some length in the Sheahan case was State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 , involving violation of a traffic ordinance.
State v. McKinnon 140 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1966
State v. McKinnon 140 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1966
8 State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 .
Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County 410 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1966
Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County 402 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
City of Bloomington v. Kossow 131 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1964
City of Bloomington v. Kossow 131 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1964
In State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436, 444 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813, 818 , 1 in construing this statutory provision, we said: “* * * As we interpret § 169.03, it was the intention of the legislature that the application of its provisions should be uniform throughout the state both as to penalties and procedures, and requires a municipality to utilize state cri
State v. Friswold 116 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1962
State v. Friswold 116 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1962
169.03 as construed by State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 ; further, that when so applied it violates *132 the equal protection clauses of the state and Federal constitutions.
State v. Moosbrugger 116 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1962
State v. Moosbrugger 116 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1962
169.03; State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 .
State Ex Rel. Mattheisen v. District Court 113 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1962
State Ex Rel. Mattheisen v. District Court 113 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1962
As we pointed out in State v. Hoben, [ 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 ] whether an alleged violator of an ordinance is to enjoy the right to a.jury trial at any court level is a matter solely within the discretion of the legislature.
State v. Hartman 112 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1961
State v. Hartman 112 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1961
The state concedes that under the rule of State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 , relator is entitled to a jury trial on the charge of following too closely, since that charge involves an ordinance which is a counterpart of Minn. St.
State Ex Rel. Pidgeon v. Hall 111 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1961
State Ex Rel. Pidgeon v. Hall 111 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1961
In State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 (filed August 21, 1959), we held that a person charged with a violation of a traffic regulation defined in Minn. St.
City of St. Paul v. Ulmer 111 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1961
City of St. Paul v. Ulmer 111 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1961
The court recently said in State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436, 443 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 , 818: “* * * Although the subject of driving an automobile under the influence of drugs or intoxicating liquor is one of statewide concern, it *188 is nevertheless one which is of legitimate concern to the municipality as well.
State Ex Rel. Sheahan v. Mulally 99 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1959
State Ex Rel. Sheahan v. Mulally 99 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1959
The defendant contends that the trial court’s order in granting a jury trial in municipal court is supported by our recent decision of State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436 , 98 N. W. (2d) 813 .