DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Meany, 115 N.W.2d 247.

46 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
  • Explained State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
    in which we explained that an “inference” is a permissible deduction that can be drawn from the proven or admitted facts.
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. R. Z. R., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    6 “In the context of careless driving, carelessness is synonymous with ordinary negligence.” ( and construing Minn. Stat. § 169.13, subd.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    (In 8 chronological order) State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 159, State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 496, Kissner, d at 321; Hegstrom, d at 702 -03; Al-Naseer, d at 752.
  • State v. Engle 743 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Engle 743 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2008
    §§ 169.11,169.13 *595 (2006) (current statutes dealing with criminal negligence and reckless driving); State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 495-96 , (“The crime of criminal negligence is defined in Minn. St.
  • State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 496
  • State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
    State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 505
  • State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
    Gross negligence has been defined as “without even scant care but not with such reckless disregard of probable consequences as is equivalent to a willful and intentional wrong.” *479 State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 496 , , 262 (1962).
  • State v. McAdory 543 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. McAdory 543 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    In addition, appellant’s flight from the police at the time of arrest shows a “consciousness of guilt.” (quoting State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 502 , ), review denied (Minn. Jan.
  • State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
    State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 502
  • State v. Knaak 396 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Knaak 396 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 506
  • In Re the Welfare of M.B.W. 364 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • In Re the Welfare of M.B.W. 364 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    The court ruled the same way in State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491
  • State v. Givens 356 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Givens 356 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Flight evidence is admissible on the issue of “consciousness of guilt.” State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 502
  • State v. Carignan 271 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Carignan 271 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1978
    State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491 , State v. DePauw, 243 Minn. 375 , State v. Gensmer, 235 Minn. 72
  • State v. Tereau 229 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Tereau 229 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1975
    State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491 , ; State v. Hayes, 244 Minn. 296
  • State v. Hansen 206 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Hansen 206 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1973
    In State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 496 , grossly negligent operation of a vehicle is defined as conduct evincing “very great negligence or without even scant care but not with such reckless disregard of probable consequences as is equivalent to a willful and intentional wrong.” 1 See, also, State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 1
  • State v. Reichenberger 182 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Reichenberger 182 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1970
    State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 502 , 115 N. W. (2d) 247, 255 .
  • In Re Welfare of Hitzemann 161 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1968
  • In Re Welfare of Hitzemann 161 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1968
    This court in State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 498 , 115 N.W.
  • State v. Tahash 153 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1967
  • State ex rel. Kier v. Tahash 153 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Tahash 153 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1967
    On the contrary, in light of the proof required to convict of the crime of criminal negligence, see, State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491 , ; State v. Homme, 226 Minn. 83 , ; State v. Bolsinger, supra, the record indicates that extensive consultation with and advice to relator should have preceded the arraignment.
  • State ex rel. Kier v. Tahash 153 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1967
    On the contrary, in light of the proof required to convict of the crime of criminal negligence, see State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491 , 115 N. W. (2d) 247 ; State v. Homme, 226 Minn. 83 , 32 N. W. (2d) 151 ; State v. Bolsinger, supra, the record indicates that extensive consultation with and advice to relator should have preceded the arraignment.
  • Wilder v. WT Grant Company 132 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1965
  • Wilder v. WT Grant Company 132 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1965
    State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491 , 115 N. W. (2d) 247 ; State v. Jones, 266 Minn. 526 , 124 N. W. (2d) 729 ; 21 Wd.
  • Johnson v. Lorraine Park Apts. Inc. 128 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1964
  • Johnson v. Lorraine Park Apts. Inc. 128 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1964
    We pointed out in State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491 , 115 N. W. (2d) 247 , that facts may be established by circumstantial evidence but where there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to support an inference any conclusion based thereon becomes merely a conjecture.
  • State v. Zecher 128 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Zecher 128 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1964
    State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491 , 115 N. W. (2d) 247 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 .
  • State v. Jones 124 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1963
  • State v. Jones 124 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1963
    State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491 , 115 N. W. (2d) 247 .
  • State v. Wurdemann 120 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1963
  • State v. Wurdemann 120 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1963
    While it is true that the particular facts alleged in the description or charge of the indictment control, State v. Farrington, 59 Minn. 147 , , 28 L. R. A. 395; State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491 , 115 N. W.. (2d) 247, and that the discription in the charge here clearly indicates a gross misdemeanor was committed, i. e., a violation of Minn. St.