DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Mancino, 102 N.W.2d 504.

33 citing documents.

  • State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    See, e.g. , State v. Mancino , 257 Minn. 580 , 589, , 510 (1960) (referring to clothing taken from business entity as personal property in appeal from conviction of grand larceny); Gustafson v. Equitable Loan Ass'n , 186 Minn. 236 , 238-39, 243 N.W.
  • State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
    4 Munt also contends that the judge’s scheduling comments influenced the jury’s verdict because they “amounted to a definite statement by the court of its conviction that [Munt] was guilty,” and therefore his case is indistinguishable from State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580
  • State v. Strodtman 399 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Strodtman 399 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580, 591
  • State v. Serstock 390 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Christenson 371 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Christenson 371 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    This remark was a comment on the evidence, and as a general rule, judges “should refrain from any word which might emphasize the personal feeling of the court.” State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580, 591 , d.
  • Lawrence v. State 169 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 1969
  • Lawrence v. State 169 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 1969
    If so taken, the taking of it involved a trespass, notwithstanding the servant who had the custody thereof consented to the taking.” We reached a similar result in State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580, 589 , 102 N. W. (2d) 504, 510 , and are of the opinion that in the instant case, as the statute applies to this defendant, the activity of the attendant was simply the means by which the “taking” was accomplished.
  • In Re Welfare of Hitzemann 161 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1968
  • In Re Welfare of Hitzemann 161 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1968
    State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580 , 102 N.W.
  • State v. Britt 156 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Britt 156 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1968
    If it accomplishes that purpose, we think our statutes, as well as the case law of this state, require that we hold the information [or indictment] sufficient.” “The offense charged in an indictment,” we said in State v. Owens, 268 Minn. 321, 325 , 129 N. W. (2d) 284, 287 , “is determined by the facts alleged and not necessarily by the name by which it is designated.” In State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580 , 102 N. W. (2d) 504, 505 , we held, pertinent to this case, that an indictment or information
  • State v. Jackson 147 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Jackson 147 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
    See State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580 , 102 N. W. (2d) 504 , where we reversed a conviction due to the trial judge’s comments on the evidence.
  • State ex rel. Edberg v. Tahash 143 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1966
  • State ex rel. Edberg v. Tahash 143 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1966
    628.18 and 628.19; State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580 , 102 N. W. (2d) 504 ; State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10 , 110 N. W. (2d) 514 ; State v. Kopetka, 265 Minn. 371 , 121 N. W. (2d) 783 ; 9 Dunnell, Dig.
  • State v. Clark 134 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Clark 134 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1965
    State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580 , 102 N. W. (2d) 504 ; State v. Wurdemann, 265 Minn. 92 , 120 N. W. (2d) 317 .
  • State v. Lehn 134 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Lehn 134 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1965
    State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580 , 102 N. W. (2d) 504 ; State v. Oman, 265 Minn. 277 , 121 N. W. (2d) 616 .
  • State v. Owens 129 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Owens 129 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1964
    State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580 , 102 N. W. (2d) 504 ; State v. Oman, 265 Minn. 277 , 121 N. W. (2d) 616 .
  • State v. Rasmussen 128 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Rasmussen 128 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1964
    In State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580, 591 , 102 N. W. (2d) 504, 512 , defendant’s conviction was reversed because of a statement made by the court to defendant’s counsel in the presence of the jury which in effect “amounted to a definite statement by the court of its conviction that defendant was guilty of participating in the theft.” In State v. Shetsky
  • State v. Kopetka 121 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1963
  • State v. Kopetka 121 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1963
    In State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580 , 102 N. W. (2d) 504 , we dis *377 cussed the statutes relating to the construction of indictments and in-formations and pointed out that the general rule now is that an indictment or information which is otherwise sufficient should not be invalidated by the fact that it contains surplusage, is awkwardly worded, or is
  • State v. Oman 121 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1963
  • State v. Oman 121 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1963
    3 In State v. *280 Mancino, 257 Minn. 580 , 102 N. W. (2d) 504 , we discussed these statutes and pointed out that the general rule now is that an indictment or information which is otherwise sufficient should not be invalidated by the fact that it contains surplusage, is awkwardly worded, or inartfully drawn.
  • State Ex Rel. McGregor v. Rigg 109 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1961
  • State Ex Rel. McGregor v. Rigg 109 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1961
    State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580 , 102 N. W. (2d) 504 ; State ex rel.