Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thompson, 139 N.W.2d 490.

168 citing documents.

State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 17 , (“Where an examination of the record as a whole shows facts from which the trial court could reasonably infer the existence of a conspiracy, the case ought not to be reversed because proof of the conspiracy came at the wrong time.”).
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
Merrill, d at 111 (citing State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , ).
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
See Scanlon, d at 686-87 (declining to award new trial for discovery violations where defendant did not demonstrate that he suffered prejudice from the violations); Palubicki, d at 489-90 (same); State v. Thompson, 278 Minn. 1, 32 , (concluding that the district court’s denial of discovery of a witness’s prior statement “may have been error,” but that the error was harmless because even if the witness’s testimony had been impeached, “we doubt that it would seriously affect the outcome of the cas
Travelers Insurance Company v. Thompson 163 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2008
Travelers Insurance Company v. Thompson 163 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2008
2 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. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 20-21 , -06 (1966).
Johnson v. State 673 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2004
Johnson v. State 673 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2004
1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (applying the rule to the states); see also State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 20
State v. Lopez-Solis 589 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1999
State v. Lopez-Solis 589 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1999
State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 14
Brula v. St. Louis County 587 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Brula v. St. Louis County 587 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 29
200 Levee Drive Ass'n v. County of Scott 532 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1995
State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
However, if otherwise inadmissible evidence is introduced before the grand jury, an indictment will not be dismissed if there is sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment, and it is not shown that “incompetent evidence has so far influenced the grand jury that an indictment would not have been returned without it.” State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 15 , , cert.
200 Levee Drive Ass'n v. County of Scott 532 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1995
State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 33 , , cert.
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , cert.
State ex rel. Ulland v. International Ass'n of Entrepreneurs of America 527 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State ex rel. Ulland v. International Ass'n of Entrepreneurs of America 527 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 29 , , cert.
State v. Othoudt 482 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1992
State v. Othoudt 482 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1992
2267 , 26 L.Ed.2d 803 (1970); State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 22 , cert.
State v. Roby 463 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1990
State v. Roby 463 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1990
State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 16 , , cert.
State v. Hines 458 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hines 458 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 16 , cert.
In re Welfare of B.D.O. 450 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In re Welfare of B.D.O. 450 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , cert.
State v. Jenkins 411 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Jenkins 411 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
see State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 16 , -03 , cert.
State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 15 , , cert.
State v. Iverson 396 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Iverson 396 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 16 , cert.
Thompson v. State 384 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1986
Thompson v. State 384 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1986
The facts surrounding the brutal murder of Thompson’s wife, Carol, are set out in detail in State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , , cert.
State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
9 The trial court relied on State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , , cert.
State v. Gustafson 379 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1985
State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
3(2), violated his right to obtain disclosure *502 of information under State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , and exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct.
State v. Gustafson 379 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1985
3(2) violated his right to obtain disclosure of information under State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , and exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct.
State v. Folley 378 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Folley 378 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , cert.
State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
Similarly, in State v. Hyleck, 286 Minn. 126 , consent was found when the defendant had his house keys delivered to the police to search for a murder weapon; and, in State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , when the defendant suggested to the police that they go to the basement of his home to see if money had been taken to determine if robbery had been the motive for his wife’s homicide.