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. Markuson, 113 N.W.2d 346.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Hawkins 260 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Hawkins 260 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1977
    If the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged, a reviewing court will not disturb its verdict.’ See, also, State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , .
  • State v. Weigold 198 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Weigold 198 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1972
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515, 517
  • State v. Mims 196 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Mims 196 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1972
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515, 517
  • State v. Otten 195 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Boldra 195 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Boldra 195 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1972
    State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , State v. Fulford, 290 Minn. 236
  • State v. Otten 195 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1972
    State v. Harrison, 279 Minn. 310 , State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , State v. Kline, 266 Minn. 372 , certiorari denied, 376 U. S. 962 , 84 S. Ct. 1124 , 11 L. ed. 2d 980 (1964); State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48 , Cady v. United States, 54 App. D. C. 10, 293 F. 829 (1923).
  • State v. Combs 195 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Combs 195 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1972
    If the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged, a reviewing court will not disturb its verdict.’ See, also, State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , 113 N. W. (2d) 346 .
  • State v. Hoskins 193 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Hoskins 193 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1972
    State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515, 519 , 5B Dunnell, Dig.
  • State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
    See, also, State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , 113 N. W. (2d) 346 .
  • State v. Walter 184 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Walter 184 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1971
    595.07; State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , 113 N. W. (2d) 346 ; State v. Curtis, 39 Minn. 357 , .
  • State v. West 173 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1969
  • State v. West 173 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1969
    See, State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , 113 N. W. (2d) 346 .
  • State v. Hansen 169 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Hansen 169 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1969
    See, State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , 113 N. W. (2d) 346 ; State v. Collins, 276 Minn. 459 , 150 N. W. (2d) 850 , certiorari denied, 390 U. S. 960 , 88 S. Ct. 1058 , 19 L. ed. (2d) 1156.
  • State v. Lund 151 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Lund 151 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1967
    *92 This court made it clear in State v. Soward, 262 Minn. 265, 266 , 114 N. W. (2d) 276, 278 , that an— “* * * appellate court cannot consider matters which were not properly raised and acted upon below and which were not properly saved for review and made a part of the record.” A similar holding may be found in State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , 113 N. W. (2d) 346 .
  • State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
    If the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged, a reviewing court will not disturb its verdict.” See, also, State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , 113 N. W. (2d) 346 .
  • State v. Keezer 143 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Keezer 143 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1966
    Neal v. United States (8 Cir.) 114 F. (2d) 1000, certiorari denied, 312 U. S. 679 , 61 S. Ct. 448 , 85 L. ed. 1118; State v. Adamson, 73 Minn. 282 , ; State v. Gavle, 234 Minn. 186 , 48 N. W. (2d) 44 ; State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , 113 N. W. (2d) 346 .
  • State v. Thompson 139 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Thompson 139 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1966
    If the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged, a reviewing court will not disturb its verdict.” See, also, State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , 113 N. W. (2d) 346 .
  • State v. Norgaard 136 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Norgaard 136 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1965
    State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , 113 N. W. (2d) 346 .
  • State v. Klinkert 136 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Klinkert 136 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1965
    State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515, 519 , 113 N. W. (2d) 346, 349 .
  • State v. Currie 126 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Currie 126 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1964
    5 See, State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 ; State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , 113 N. W. (2d) 346 .
  • State v. Soward 114 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1962
  • State v. Soward 114 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1962
    State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , 113 N. W. (2d) 346 .