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. Thompson, 123 N.W.2d 378.

31 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    - 4 On appeal, Chauvin references statements by the MPD police chief and the commissioner of public safety describing the incident as a “murder” before he was convicted.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    submitted with his motion were published 11 months or more before trial); State v. Swain , (concluding that six months between the one week of pretrial publicity and trial mitigated prejudice); (concluding that a three-month gap between pretrial publicity and trial mitigated prejudice); ( suggesting that ongoing press coverage “[o]ver a period of several months” where “hardly a day has elapsed when something has not been said or written in a news medium of one kind or another” is prejudicial) .
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
    State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385, 388 , (“The vice of the publicity given this case is not in printing or disseminating factual news but in printing and broadcasting what purports to be the opinions of people who are supposed to know the facts.”).
  • State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
    See also State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385 , : “The vice of the publicity given this ease is not in printing or disseminating factual news but in printing and broadcasting what purports to be the opinions of people who are supposed to know the facts.” Id.
  • State v. Ward 349 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Ward 349 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    See, e.g., State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385
  • State v. Salas 306 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Salas 306 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1981
    See, e. g., State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385, 387 , (per curiam).
  • State v. Gilbert 268 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Gilbert 268 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1978
    State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385 , Berry v. North Pine Elec.
  • State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
    Defendant cites only State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385 , and argues that the trial court should have granted the change of venue to promote the ends of justice.
  • State v. Nelson 257 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Nelson 257 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1977
    State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385
  • State v. Hogan 212 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Hogan 212 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1973
    Cf. State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385
  • State v. Annis 192 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Annis 192 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1971
    Absent any showing of actual bias, State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182 , or real likelihood of prejudice, cf. State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385 , we do not hesitate to affirm the trial court’s exercise of its judicial discretion.
  • Thompson v. State 183 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1971
  • Thompson v. State 183 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1971
    State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385 , 123 N. W. (2d) 378 .
  • Rotering v. Jones 152 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1967
  • Rotering v. Jones 152 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1967
    The judge cites State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385, 389 , 123 N. W. (2d) 378, 382 , in support of his contention that ordinarily it is not permissible for a defendant, on a motion for a change of venue, to select the county to which the venue should be changed, the selection being a matter that rests largely in the discretion of the trial court.
  • State v. Thompson 139 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Thompson 139 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1966
    State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385, 388 , 123 N. W. (2d) 378, 381 .
  • State v. Lupino 129 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Lupino 129 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1964
    It is unnecessary to repeat what has been so recently outlined in *352 State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385 , 123 N. W. (2d) 378 , where attention was called to those recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court emphasizing that the right of an individual to a fair trial is not to be undermined by the unrestrained exercise of the rights and privileges of press, radio, and television.
  • Castle v. Village of Baudette 125 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1963
  • Castle v. Village of Baudette 125 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1963
    3 State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385 , 123 N. W. (2d) 378 ; State ex rel.