Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hartman, 112 N.W.2d 340.

34 citing documents.

In re State of Minnesota, Petitioner, State of Minnesota, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We will not issue a writ unless the petitioner meets three requirements: “(1) an inferior court or tribunal must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power 4 must be unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of such power must result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Williams 415 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Williams 415 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314, 316
Smoliak v. Myhr 361 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Schmidt 360 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Schmidt 360 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314, 323
Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Lee 353 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Lee 353 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314, 323
Liptak v. State Ex Rel. City of New Hope 340 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Hancock-Nelson Mercantile Co. v. Weisman 340 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Hancock-Nelson Mercantile Co. v. Weisman 340 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314 , Bellows v. Ericson, 233 Minn. 320 , Nemo v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees’ Local No. 556, 227 Minn. 263
Liptak v. State Ex Rel. City of New Hope 340 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314 , Bellows v. Ericson, 233 Minn. 320 , Nemo v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Local No. 556, 227 Minn. 263
Petition of Giblin 232 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1975
Petition of Giblin 232 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1975
“G. That final hearing on this cause be and it is set for August 12, 1974 at 2:00 P.M.” See, Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52 , Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79 , Griggs, Cooper & Co. v. Lauer’s, Inc. 264 Minn. 338 , Smith v. Tuman, 262 Minn. 149 , State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314 , Mariner v. Whipple, 259 Minn. 18 , Bellows v. Ericson, 233 Minn. 320 , Kienlen v. Kienlen, 227 Minn. 137 , Huhn v. Foley Bros. Inc. 221 Minn. 279 , State ex rel.
Richardson v. School Board of Independent School District No. 271 210 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1973
Richardson v. School Board of Independent School District No. 271 210 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1973
State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314
Peterson v. Peterson 153 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1967
Peterson v. Peterson 153 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1967
The cases in which this court has held that a jury trial is not available in municipal ordinance prosecutions, State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314 , 112 N. W. (2d) 340 ; State v. Ketterer, 248 Minn. 173 , 79 N. W. (2d) 136 ; see, 10 Dunnell, Dig.
City of Bloomington v. Kossow 131 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1964
City of Bloomington v. Kossow 131 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1964
The fact is that the legislature, in amending the law, merely said: ‘Every person committing the offense herein set forth, after having once been convicted of such an" offense in this state, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.’ This language contemplates only a prior conviction under the state law.” 3 See, also, State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314 , 112 N. W. (2d) 340 ; State ex rel.
GRIGGS, COOPER & CO. INC. v. Lauer's, Inc. 119 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1962
GRIGGS, COOPER & CO. INC. v. Lauer's, Inc. 119 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1962
State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314 , 112 N. W. (2d) 340 ; Nemo v. Local Joint Executive Bd.
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 524 v. Johnson 117 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1962
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 524 v. Johnson 117 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1962
State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314 , *577 112 N. W. (2d) 340 ; Smith v. Tuman, 262 Minn. 149 , 114 N. W. (2d) 73 .
State v. Friswold 116 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1962
State v. Friswold 116 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1962
6, 4 State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314 , 112 N. W. (2d) 340 ; State v. Ketterer, 248 Minn. 173 , 79 N. W. (2d) 136 .
Richfield Federation of Teachers v. Richfield Education Ass'n 115 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1962
Richfield Federation of Teachers v. Richfield Education Ass'n 115 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1962
The conditions under which a writ of prohibition may issue have recently been reviewed in State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314 , 112 N. W. (2d) 340 .
In Re Petition of Parks 114 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1962
In Re Petition of Parks 114 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1962
State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314 , 112 N. W. (2d) 340 ; Marine v. Whipple, 259 Minn. 18 , 104 N. W. (2d) 657 .
Smith v. Tuman 114 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1962
Smith v. Tuman 114 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1962
The requisites of a writ of prohibition are expressed by our court in State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314, 323 , 112 N. W. (2d) 340 , 346: “To establish that he is entitled to the issuance of a writ of prohibition, relator must show: (1) That the court, officer, or person is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) that the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law; and (3) that it will result in injury
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
In State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314, 322 , 112 N. W. (2d) 340, 345 , where defendant had been charged with driving after suspension of his driver’s license in violation of a Minneapolis ordinance, and where his demand for a jury trial in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis on this charge had been denied, this court recognized the applicabilit