Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McCorvey, 114 N.W.2d 703.
- State v. Williams 451 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-
State v. Williams
451 N.W.2d 886
Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361, 365 , Simmons , 280 Minn, at 112 n. 4, d at 212 n. 4.
- State v. Christensen 439 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-
State v. Christensen
439 N.W.2d 389
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
at 2298-99 (footnotes omitted); see also State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , *392 (Minn.Ct.App.1985).
- State v. Bjornson 378 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
State v. Bjornson
378 N.W.2d 4
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Larson Transfer & Storage, Inc., 310 Minn. 295, 298 , (quoting State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361, 365 , ).
- State v. Ibarra 355 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1984
-
State v. Ibarra
355 N.W.2d 125
Minn. 1984
“A criminal statute must be definite enough to give notice *129 of the conduct required to anyone who desires to avoid its penalties.” State v. Target Stores, Inc., 279 Minn. 447, 471 , (quoting State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361, 365 , ).
- State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
-
State v. Loebach
310 N.W.2d 58
Minn. 1981
at 840 ; see State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , 181 N.W.
- State v. Martin 256 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1977
-
State v. Martin
256 N.W.2d 85
Minn. 1977
State v, McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337
- 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
In State v. Target Stores, Inc. 279 Minn. 447, 471 , this court quoting State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361, 365 , stated: “A criminal statute must be definite enough to give notice of the conduct required to anyone who desires to avoid its penalties; it.must.be sufficiently definite to guide the judge in its application and the attorney in defending a person charged with its violation.
- State v. Schweppe 237 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1975
-
State v. Schweppe
237 N.W.2d 609
Minn. 1975
*403 See, State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19
- State v. Sharich 209 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1973
-
State v. Sharich
209 N.W.2d 907
Minn. 1973
State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337
- State v. Armstrong 162 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1968
-
State v. Armstrong
162 N.W.2d 357
Minn. 1968
3 Our original statute, less precise and specific in terms than the present state statute or the provisions of the ordinances immediately before us, was sustained against the constitutional challenge of vagueness by a unanimous court in State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , 114 N. W. (2d) 703 .
- State v. Simmons 158 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1968
-
State v. Simmons
158 N.W.2d 209
Minn. 1968
While it is not necessary that there be mathematical precision in the statement of the conduct required or prohibited, State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , 114 N. W. (2d) 703 , a statute may not require or forbid conduct in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning.
- State v. Target Stores, Inc. 156 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1968
-
State v. Target Stores, Inc.
156 N.W.2d 908
Minn. 1968
It was stated thus in practical terms in State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361, 365 , 114 N. W. (2d) 703 , 706: “A criminal statute must be definite enough to give notice of the conduct required to anyone who desires to avoid its penalties; it must be sufficiently definite to guide the judge in its application and the attorney in defending a person charged with its violation.
- State v. Mathiasen 141 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1966
-
State v. Mathiasen
141 N.W.2d 805
Minn. 1966
State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , 114 N. W. (2d) 703 .
- State v. Currie 126 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1964
-
State v. Currie
126 N.W.2d 389
Minn. 1964
Paul v. Harris, 150 Minn. 170 , ; State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , 114 N. W. (2d) 703 ; Underhill, Criminal Evidence (5 ed.) § 192.