DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 104 N.W.2d 301.

229 citing documents.

  • State v. Jurek 376 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Sanders 376 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Sanders 376 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 1985
    This hearing was named after Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Walker 372 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Walker 372 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328
  • State v. McRae 371 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. McRae 371 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Beer 367 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Beer 367 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 1985
    Named after Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    He did not ask for a hearing on the juror’s competence pursuant to Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • Pomani Ex Rel. Pomani v. Underwood 365 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Pomani Ex Rel. Pomani v. Underwood 365 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Hodge 362 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hodge 362 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Sanders 355 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Sanders 355 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    This is different from the type of voir dire contemplated by Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Henderson 355 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Henderson 355 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    In Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328 , the Minnesota Supreme Court outlined the procedures to be followed when a party seeks to impeach a verdict.
  • State v. Stephanie 354 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Stephanie 354 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1984
    order denying a petition for post-conviction relief, defendant claims: (1) that he is entitled to an outright reversal of his convictions on the ground that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient; (2) that he should receive a new trial because of certain trial errors; (3) that the case should be remanded for a so-called Schwartz hearing — see Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , —into allegations of jury misconduct; or (4) that, at least, his sentence should be r
  • State v. Rachuy 349 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Rachuy 349 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1984
    Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328 , we outlined procedures to be followed when a party seeks to impeach a verdict.
  • State v. Durfee 322 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Durfee 322 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1982
    Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , held that when juror misconduct was alleged by a litigant, the matter should be brought to the attention of the trial judge immediately, and if it appears to the judge that the facts justify so doing, the court may summon the juror before him for examination in the presence of counsel and on th
  • Gersdorf v. RD Werner Co., Inc. 316 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1982
  • Gersdorf v. RD Werner Co., Inc. 316 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1982
    Appellant learned of the secret instructions by use of affidavits taken from jurors without the benefit of a hearing as required by Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Dodis 314 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Dodis 314 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1982
    Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Callender 297 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Callender 297 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Mings 289 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Mings 289 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1980
    See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , .(1960).
  • State v. Scheerle 285 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Scheerle 285 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1979
    Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , states as follows: “Affidavits of jurors shall not be received in evidence to impeach their verdict.
  • State v. Stofflet 281 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Stofflet 281 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1979
    Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328 , we outlined procedures to be followed when a party seeks to impeach a verdict.
  • State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
    19(6), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 1 citing Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • Quinn v. Winkel's, Inc. 279 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1979
  • Quinn v. Winkel's, Inc. 279 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1979
    See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. *69 325
  • State v. Domabyl 272 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Domabyl 272 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1978
    Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328 , we outlined procedures to be followed when a party seeks to impeach a verdict.
  • Zimmerman Ex Rel. Zimmerman v. Witte Transportation Co. 259 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1977
  • Zimmerman Ex Rel. Zimmerman v. Witte Transportation Co. 259 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1977
    Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328
  • State v. Kyles 257 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Kyles 257 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
    See, Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • Baker v. Gile 257 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1977
  • Baker v. Gile 257 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1977
    The trial court, over objection of defendants’ counsel, conducted an examination of the foreman of the jury pursuant to Schwartz v. Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 254 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1977