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. Taylor, 133 N.W.2d 828.

48 citing documents.

  • A20-0508 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    “The admissibility of evidence canno t be questioned for the first time on appeal.”
  • State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
    See State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333, 339
  • State v. Skinner 450 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • 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. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333, 339
  • State v. Kremer 239 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Kremer 239 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 1976
    at since defendant’s contentions regarding the scope of the search and the justification for a nighttime search— the identical issue raised in the instant case — were raised for the first time on appeal, these issues were “not properly presented under soundly based and settled rules limiting our scope of review to issues raised at trial.” 292 Minn. 237 , , citing State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333
  • Van Straaten v. State 204 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1973
  • Van Straaten v. State 204 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1973
    See, also, Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 , 84 S. Ct. 1774 , 12 L. ed. 2d 908 (1964); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 , 86 S. Ct. 1772 , 16 L. ed. 2d 882 (1966); State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333 , State ex rel.
  • State v. Hebert 202 N.W.2d 884 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Hebert 202 N.W.2d 884 Minn. 1972
    State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333
  • State v. LaBarre 195 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1972
  • State v. LaBarre 195 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1972
    State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333
  • State v. Boykin 172 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Boykin 172 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1969
    State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828 .
  • State v. Burch 170 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Burch 170 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1969
    State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333, 339 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828, 832 .
  • Chapman v. State 162 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Daml 162 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Daml 162 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1968
    The point thus raised is disposed of by prior holdings of this court in State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39 , 41 N. W. (2d) 313 , 15 A. L. R. (2d) 1137, and State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828 .
  • Chapman v. State 162 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1968
    State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828 .
  • State v. Schumann 157 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Schumann 157 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1968
    State v. Soward, 262 Minn. 265 , 114 N. W. (2d) 276 ; State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828 ; State v. Ferraro, 277 Minn. 204 , 152 N. W. (2d) 183 ; State v. Carmichael, 275 Minn. 148 , 145 N. W. (2d) 554 .
  • State v. Harrison 156 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Harrison 156 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1968
    State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828 ; State v. Ferraro, 277 Minn. 204 , 152 N. W. (2d) 183 .
  • State v. Kotka 152 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Kotka 152 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1967
    See, One 1961 Lincoln Continental Sedan v. United States (8 Cir.) 360 F. (2d) 467; Robinson v. United States (8 Cir.) 327 F. (2d) 618; State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828 ; State v. Richter, 270 Minn. 307 , 133 N. W. (2d) 537 , certiorari denied, 382 U. S. 860 , 86 S. Ct. 119 , 15 L. ed. (2d) 98.
  • State v. Eubanks 152 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Eubanks 152 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 1967
    In Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U. S. 568, 602 , 81 S. Ct. 1860, 1879 , 6 L. ed. (2d) 1037, 1057 (cited with approval in State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333, 338 , 133 N. W. [2d] 828, 832), the court said: “* * * The ultimate test remains that which has been the only clearly established test in Anglo-American courts for two hundred years: the test of voluntariness.
  • State v. Johnson 152 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Johnson 152 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 1967
    Defendant in attacking the competence of his counsel in these instances is actually attempting to circumvent the rule laid down in State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828 , that the admissibility of evidence cannot be questioned for the first time on appeal.
  • State v. Ferraro 152 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Ferraro 152 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1967
    More recently, in State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333, 339 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828, 832 , this court stated: “=i= * * [\y]e are prevented from determining the Federal constitutional questions raised by two rules of state law long established by the decisions of this court: (1) The admissibility of evidence cannot be questioned for the first time on appeal; and (2) convictio
  • State v. Sutton 152 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Sutton 152 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 1967
    8 Although we have indicated that the rule may be relaxed in unusual circumstances where to otherwise stand upon technical niceties might result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828 ; State ex rel.
  • State v. Kobi 151 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Kobi 151 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1967
    State v. Biron, 266 Minn. 272 , 123 N. W. (2d) 392 ; State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828 ; State ex rel.
  • State v. Winge 144 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Winge 144 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1966
    1 State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333, 337 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828, 831 ; State ex rel.
  • State v. Keiser 143 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Keiser 143 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1966
    It will be the obligation of the state to proceed first at such a hearing identifying the evidence which will be offered against the defendant and showing that the circumstances under which it was obtained were consistent with constitutional requirements.” The factors to be considered in determining whether a confession is valid are as outlined in State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828 .
  • State v. Housker 139 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Housker 139 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1966
    Even if objection had been made to the receipt in evidence of the statements attributed to defendant, the reasonable inference to be taken from the facts disclosed by the record is that the statements were given freely and voluntarily within the rules outlined in State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828 .
  • State Ex Rel. Holm v. Tahash 139 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1965
  • State Ex Rel. Holm v. Tahash 139 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1965
    10 State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333, 337 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828, 831 .
  • State Ex Rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash 141 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1965
  • State Ex Rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash 141 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1965
    43 The factors to be considered in *555 determining whether a confession is valid are as outlined in State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333 , 133 N. W. (2d) 828 .