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. Thompson, 139 N.W.2d 490.

168 citing documents.

  • State v. Walker 235 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Walker 235 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
    State v. Kahner, 217 Minn. 574 , , certiorari denied, 323 U. S. 768 , 65 S. Ct. 121 , 89 L. ed. 614 (1944); State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. 2d 56 (1966).
  • State v. Bowser 234 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Bowser 234 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1975
    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. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. 2d 56.
  • State v. St. Christopher 232 N.W.2d 798 Minn. 1975
  • State v. St. Christopher 232 N.W.2d 798 Minn. 1975
    See, e.g., State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. *237 39, 17 L. ed. 2d 56 (1966).
  • State, Village of New Hope v. Eric Duplessie 231 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1975
  • State, Village of New Hope v. Eric Duplessie 231 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1975
    State v. Tennyson, supra; State v. Kahner, 217 Minn. 574 , , certiorari denied, 323 U. S. 768 , 65 S. Ct. 121 , 89 L. ed. 614 (1944); State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. 2d 56 (1966); Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U. S. 440 , 69 S. Ct. 716 , 93 L. ed. 790 (1949); Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391 , 77 S. Ct. 963 , 1 L. ed. 2d 931 (1957).
  • State v. LaJambe 219 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1974
  • State v. LaJambe 219 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1974
    See, e.g., State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. 2d 56 (1966).
  • State v. Ebert 519 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1974
  • In Re Application for Discipline of Thompson 209 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1973
  • In Re Application for Discipline of Thompson 209 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1973
    State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1
  • State v. King 208 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1973
  • State v. King 208 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1973
    Defendant is entitled, under our rules stated in State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. 2d 56 (1966), and State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315 , to the production, at trial, of a pretrial written statement of a witness for purposes of possible impeachment.
  • Van Straaten v. State 204 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1973
  • Van Straaten v. State 204 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1973
    See, State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. 2d 56 (1966).
  • State v. Combs 195 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Combs 195 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1972
    That rule is best stated in State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. 2d 56 (1966): “* * * In State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , 136 N. W. (2d) 628, 631 , 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 ascertai
  • State v. Mytych 194 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Mytych 194 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1972
    State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. 2d 56 (1966); State v. Kline, 266 Minn. 372, 374 , certiorari denied, 376 U. S. 962 , 84 S. Ct. 1124 , 11 L. ed. 2d 980 (1964).
  • State v. Hoskins 193 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Hoskins 193 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1972
    Recently, in State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. 2d 56 (1966), this court reiterated its position regarding the scope of review in determining the sufficiency of the evidence and the authority of the jury in regard thereto.
  • State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
    In State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490, 515 , this court said: “We are also governed by the rule that on appeal this court must take the evidence most favorable to the state and must assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved anything which contradicted their testimony.
  • State v. Johnson 184 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Johnson 184 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1971
    State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490, 515 ; State v. Chick, 192 Minn. 539 , ; State v. Minot, 79 Minn. 118 , .
  • Travelers Insurance v. Thompson 184 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 1971
  • Travelers Insurance v. Thompson 184 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 1971
    The basic facts in the criminal proceeding against appellant and in this dispute concerning the liability of the insurance companies are set out in detail in State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490 , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. (2d) 56, and The Travelers Ins.
  • Thompson v. State 183 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1971
  • Thompson v. State 183 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1971
    State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490 .
  • State v. Everson 175 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Everson 175 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1970
    State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490 , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. (2d) 56.
  • State v. Bagley 175 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Bagley 175 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1970
    See, State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490, 515 , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. (2d) 56.
  • State v. Mastrian 171 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Mastrian 171 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1969
    Paul, Ramsey County, on March 6, 1963, admittedly by one Dick W. C. Anderson, as previously described in complete detail in State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490 , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 ,17 L. ed. (2d) 56.
  • State v. Musta 170 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Musta 170 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1969
    See, 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. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490 , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. (2d) 56; Annotation, 31 A. L. R. (2d) 417.
  • Thompson v. State 170 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1969
  • Thompson v. State 170 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1969
    State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490 .
  • State v. Gaulke 161 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Gaulke 161 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
    The record does not show that defendant requested production of any signed statements by the victims, and defendant’s claim of a violation of the rule requiring production, adopted in State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490 , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. (2d) 56, is groundless.
  • State v. O'DONNELL 158 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1968
  • State v. O'DONNELL 158 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1968
    In State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 33 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490, 513 , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. (2d) 56, this court said: “* * * [Bjefore the fact that a juror may have read a newspaper article discussing certain aspects of the case will furnish the basis for a new trial it must appear (1) that the juror did read such art
  • State v. Kotlarek 155 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Kotlarek 155 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 1968
    We recently had occasion to examine this subject in State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490 , certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 817 , 87 S. Ct. 39 , 17 L. ed. (2d) 56, where we pointed out the difficulty of going behind the indictment and determining what evidence the grand jury relied on in indicting the defendant if there were witnesses who were competent to testify and did appear before th
  • State v. Forichette 156 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Eliason 155 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Eliason 155 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1968
    The law relating to the production of pretrial statements and reports is well set out in State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , 139 N. W. (2d) 490 , and followed in State v. Dahlstrom, 276 Minn. 301 , 150 N. W. *74 (2d) 53, where this court reiterated the principles enunciated in Thompson as follows ( 276 Minn. 304 , 150 N. W. [2d] 56): “b. Reports made by an officer, who is called as a witness by the prosecution, to another officer or the d