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. Norgaard, 136 N.W.2d 628.

144 citing documents.

  • State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
    citing State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Mickelson 378 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Mickelson 378 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Whelan, 291 Minn. 83, 85 , State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Snyder 375 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Snyder 375 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48 , -32 (1965)
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
    “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, the court will not disturb its verdict.” quoting State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Ibarra 355 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ibarra 355 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1984
    State v. Whelan, 291 Minn. 83, 85 , State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Taylor 353 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Taylor 353 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48
  • State v. Parker 353 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Parker 353 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1984
    McCullum, d at 91 ; State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Heidelberger 353 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Heidelberger 353 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Whelan, 291 Minn. 83, 85 , State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , -32 (1965).
  • Moll v. State 351 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Moll v. State 351 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Dugal v. Tahash, 278 Minn. 175, 177 , State v. Tribblet, 281 Minn. 505 , State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48
  • State v. Nash 342 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Nash 342 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Whelan, 291 Minn. 83, 85 , State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , We cannot retry the facts, but must take the view of the evidence most favorable to the state and must assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.
  • State v. Turnipseed 297 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Turnipseed 297 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1980
    State v. Whelan, 291 Minn. 83, 85 , State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Curtis 295 N.W.2d 253 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Pieschke 295 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Knight 295 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Curtis 295 N.W.2d 253 Minn. 1980
    “If the jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving the *257 defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty, that verdict will not be reversed.” State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Pieschke 295 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1980
    -29 (Minn.1978); State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , -32 (1965).
  • State v. Knight 295 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1980
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48
  • State v. Hamilton 289 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Hamilton 289 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 1979
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48
  • State v. McCullum 289 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1979
  • State v. McCullum 289 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1979
    As we stated in State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , : “ * * * 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.” *
  • State v. Lee 282 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Lee 282 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1979
    39 , 17 L.Ed.2d 56 (1966); *902 State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48
  • State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
    State v. Whelan, 291 Minn. 83, 85 , State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Oevering 268 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Oevering 268 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1978
    39 , 17 L.Ed.2d 56 (1966); State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48
  • State v. Marsyla 269 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Marsyla 269 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1978
    As we held in State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , : “ * * * 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.” S
  • State v. Strimling 265 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Strimling 265 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1978
    39 , 17 L.Ed.2d 56 (1966); State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48
  • State v. Hawkins 260 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Hawkins 260 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1977
    In State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , , we said: ‘In passing upon the weight and sufficiency of the evidence we can only repeat that the scope of our review is limited to ascertaining whether under the evidence contained in the record the jury could reasonably find the accused guilty of the offense charged.
  • State v. Mollberg 246 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Mollberg 246 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1976
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48
  • State v. Houff 243 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Houff 243 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1976
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Walker 235 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Walker 235 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
    r 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.” State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. 2d 56 (1966), quoting State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52