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. Higgin, 99 N.W.2d 902.

31 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
    See State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46, 53, (concluding that the failure to provide a transcript became a moot point once the transcript was provided).
  • State v. Livingston 420 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Livingston 420 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    In State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46 , the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that specific intent cannot be presumed and must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    *288 In State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46 , the supreme court reversed a criminal conviction because the court gave an erroneous instruction regarding specific intent.
  • State v. Green 351 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Green 351 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Cf. State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46 , (where specific intent is an essential element of the offense charged, it can never be presumed.)
  • State v. Bott 246 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Bott 246 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1976
    He relies upon State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46 , in which we disapproved instructing the jury that after finding the presence of one element of an offense, another element could be presumed to be present.
  • State v. Reps 223 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Reps 223 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1974
    6 State v. Simon, 163 Minn. 317 , State v. Townsend, 259 Minn. 522 , State v. Kelly, 218 Minn. 247 , , 162 A. L. R. 477 (1944); State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46 , State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359 , , 86 A. L. R. 2d 649 (1960).
  • State v. O'NEILL 216 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1974
  • State v. O'NEILL 216 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1974
    Geiselhart v. Tahash, 274 Minn. 464 , State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343 , State v. Higgen, 257 Minn. 46
  • State v. Everson 175 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Everson 175 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1970
    State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46 , 99 N. W. (2d) 902 .
  • State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
    2 See, also, State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46, 52 , 99 N. W. (2d) 902, 907 ; State ex rel.
  • State Ex Rel. Geiselhart v. Tahash 144 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1966
  • State Ex Rel. Geiselhart v. Tahash 144 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1966
    In State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46, 52 , 99 N. W. (2d) 902, 907 , which involved a conviction for forgery, we said with respect to the presumption of intent to defraud in uttering a forged instrument: “* * * [Wjhere specific intent is an essential element of the offense charged, it can never be presumed, at least in the sense that it must be found from
  • Lustik v. Rankila 131 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Edwards 130 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Edwards 130 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1964
    State v. Simon, 163 Minn. 317 , ; State v. Kelly, supra; State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46 , 99 N. W. (2d) 902 ; State v. Townsend, 259 Minn. 522 , 108 N. W. (2d) 608 ; State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359 , 104 N. W. (2d) 650 , 86 A. L. R. (2d) 649.
  • State v. Demry 109 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1961
  • State v. Demry 109 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1961
    Thus in State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46, 50 , 99 N. W. (2d) 902, 905 , we stated: “* * * a showing that the- defendant wrongfully signed another’s *180 name to a check without authority establishes a sufficient basis for an inference that the defendant intended to defraud someone.
  • State v. Townsend 108 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1961
  • State v. Townsend 108 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1961
    See, State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46 , 99 N. W. (2d) 902 .
  • State v. Keaton 104 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1960
  • State v. Keaton 104 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1960
    See, State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46 , 99 N. W. (2d) 902 ; Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246 , 72 S. Ct. 240 , 96 L. ed. 288.
  • State, by Lord v. Bradac 102 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 1960
  • State, by Lord v. Bradac 102 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 1960
    Appellants cite our recent case of State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46 , 99 N. W. (2d) 902 , in support of their proposition.