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. Grunau, 141 N.W.2d 815.

36 citing documents.

  • Shipka v. Helvig 405 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Shipka v. Helvig 405 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315, 331
  • State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
    1007 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1103 (1957), as recognized by this court in State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 26-32 , -12 (1966), and State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315, 322-29 , -25 (1966).
  • Matter of Welfare of Rwb 376 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Matter of Welfare of Rwb 376 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315, 330-31 , Minn.R.Evid.
  • State v. Webber 292 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Webber 292 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1980
    State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315
  • State v. Kirkwood 249 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Kirkwood 249 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1977
    Under the rule adopted in State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315 , and State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , 1 defendant’s counsel could have used these statements in cross-examining the eyewitnesses when, they testified.
  • State v. Love 221 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Love 221 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1974
    See, among numerous Minnesota cases, State v. Jackson, 275 Minn. 462 , State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315
  • 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.
  • State v. Jones 196 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Jones 196 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1972
    1 See, State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315
  • State v. Bishop 183 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Bishop 183 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 1971
    See, also, State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315 , 141 N. W. (2d) 815 , with reference to “Jencks Act” procedure to require prosecution disclosure of pretrial statements of witnesses.
  • State v. Hall 176 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Hall 176 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1970
    See, State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315 , 141 N. W. (2d) 815 .
  • State v. Mastrian 171 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Mastrian 171 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1969
    As we cautioned in State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327 , and reemphasized in State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315 , 144 N. W. (2d) 815 , a felony arrest and search should not be made without a warrant unless there is a compelling necessity to do so.
  • State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
    State v. Grunau, [ 273 Minn. 315 ] .
  • State v. McConoughey 163 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 1968
  • State v. McConoughey 163 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 1968
    While the action of the police in entering the room without first obtaining a warrant is not to be commended or encouraged, State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315, 323 , 141 N. W. (2d) 815, 822 , the test is not the reasonableness or practicality of obtaining a warrant, but the reasonableness of the search or arrest.
  • State v. Stewig 161 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Stewig 161 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1968
    This contention is without merit and is governed by State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315, 322 , 141 N. W. (2d) 815, 821 , where Mr. Chief Justice Knutson, writing for the court, stated: “* * * When the automobde, then in the public safety garage, was later broken open and the articles formerly observed through the open door of the trunk were removed, it was mainly a seizure and not a search.
  • State v. Thieme 160 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Thieme 160 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1968
    See, State v. Demry, 260 Minn. 173 , 109 N. W. (2d) 587 ; State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186 , 134 N. W. (2d) 115 ; State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315 , 141 N. W. (2d) 815 ; Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 , 87 S. Ct. 1642 , 18 L. ed. (2d) 782.
  • State v. Forichette 156 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Thiele 155 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Forichette 156 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1968
    Subsequent to the trial of this case, our decisions 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 State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315 , 141 N. W. (2d) 815 , were filed.
  • State v. Thiele 155 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1968
    At the opening of trial on September 7, 1966, defendant’s counsel demanded the production of “all statements, physical evidence and other materials that are available to and in the hands of the prosecution at this time,” on the authority of State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315 , 141 N. W. (2d) 815 .
  • State v. Dahlstrom 150 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Dahlstrom 150 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1967
    In State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315 , 141 N. W. (2d) 815 , filed March 18, 1966, it was held that this so-called “Jencks rule” should be applied to cases coming to this court on appeal where the judgment has not *304 become final and the record has been protected, if failure to do so will result in substantial prejudice to the defendant.