Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Emerson, 123 N.W.2d 382.

34 citing documents.

State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
See State v. Emerson , 266 Minn. 217 , , 386-87 (1963) (stating that the privilege does not apply when a physician examines a person for a purpose other than to diagnose and treat the person).
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark Thompson 873 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark Thompson 873 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr. 859 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr. 859 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 2015
State v. Bonner, 275 Minn. 280, 287 , see also State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217, 221 , (noting that subjecting an arrested man to photographs, X-rays, and a medical examination did not violate his due process rights).
State v. Gore 451 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1990
State v. Gore 451 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1990
E.g., State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217, 224
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 384 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 384 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See, e.g., State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217, 223 , (“Where a medical examination is for some reason other than diagnosis and treatment, we have held the privilege does not obtain.”); Hierl v. McClure, 238 Minn. 335, 341 , (party admissions made to physician who was not the party’s attending physician are not
State v. Trueman 227 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1975
State v. Trueman 227 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1975
Ford v. Tahash, 278 Minn. 358 , State v. Garrity, 277 Minn. 111 , State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217 , McCormick, Evidence, (2 ed.) § 124.
State v. Riley 226 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1975
State v. Riley 226 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1975
2 See, also, State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217 , in which this court discussed authority for requiring an accused to reveal portions of his anatomy in a variety of situations.
State v. Cvar 196 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1972
State v. Cvar 196 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1972
State v. Suess, 280 Minn. 308 , State v. DeSchoatz, 280 Minn. 3 , State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180 , State v. Purdy, 278 Minn. 133 , State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217 , United States v. Skinner, 412 F. 2d 98 (8 Cir. 1969); Raniele v. United States, 34 F. 2d 877 (8 Cir. 1929); Nathanson v. United States, 290 U. S. 41 , 54 S. Ct. 11 , 78 L. ed. 159 (1933); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 , 89 S. Ct. 584 , 21 L. ed. 2d 637 (1969); United States v. Ven
State v. Jensen 174 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1970
State v. Jensen 174 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1970
In State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217, 223 , 123 N. W. (2d) 382, 386 , this court said: “Where a medical examination is for some reason other than diagnosis and treatment, we have held the privilege does not obtain.
State v. Campbell 161 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1968
State v. Campbell 161 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1968
Although there was no exigent circumstance of the kind present in Schmerber or in our own case of State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217 , 123 N. W. (2d) 382 , the taking under the conversational circumstances of this case was not unreasonable 11 or offensive to “a human sense of decency.” 12 The rejection of evidence procured by unlawful search and seizure is a prophylactic rule to constrain police abuse of citizens.
State v. DeSchoatz 157 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1968
State v. DeSchoatz 157 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1968
With respect, to probable cause in the Purdy case, we stated ( 278 Minn. 140 , 153 N. W. [2d] 259): “ * * If the arrest was effected on the basis of advice furnished by a trustworthy informant, it was sufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest and to render admissible observations made incident to it.’ State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217, 220 , 123 N. W. (2d) 382, 384 , citing Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 , 79 S. Ct. 329 , 3 L. ed. (2d) 327.” ■ It appears from the trial transcr
State v. Purdy 153 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1967
State v. Purdy 153 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1967
It is well settled, both under Federal law and in Minnesota: “* * * If fhg arrest was effected on the basis of advice furnished by a trustworthy informant, it was sufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest and to render admissible observations made incident to it.” State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217, 220 , 123 N. W. (2d) 382, 384 , citing Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 , 79 S. Ct. 329 , 3 L. ed. (2d) 327.
State v. Fontana 152 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1967
State v. Fontana 152 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1967
State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217, 223 , 123 N. W. (2d) 382, 386 .
State v. Ramsey County District Court 150 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1967
State v. Ramsey County District Court 150 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1967
See, also, State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327 , certiorari denied, 375 U. S. 867 , 84 S. a. 141, 11 L. ed. (2d) 94; State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217 , 123 N. W. (2d) 382 .
State v. Bonner 146 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1966
State v. Bonner 146 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1966
Under State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217 , 123 N. W. (2d) 382 , there was no error in the reception of this evidence.
State v. Richter 133 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1965
State v. Richter 133 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1965
State v. Richter 133 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1965
State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 270 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327, 334 ; State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217, 220 , 123 N. W. (2d) 382, 385 ; State ex rel.
State v. Richter 133 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1965
NOTES [1] State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 270 , ; State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217, 220 , ; State ex rel.