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. Lund, 151 N.W.2d 769.

39 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
  • State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
    Instead, we have consistently held that “[t]he mere fact of a person’s [using intoxicants] does not create a presumption of intoxication, and the possibility of intoxication does not create the presumption that a person is rendered 11 incapable of intending to do a certain act.”
  • State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
    Wahlberg, d at 418 (citing State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 92 , ).
  • State v. Torres 632 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Lopez 587 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Lopez 587 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1998
    State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 92
  • State v. Battin 474 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Battin 474 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    “The mere fact of a person’s drinking does not create a presumption of intoxication.” State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 92
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
    See State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90
  • State v. Tiessen 354 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. St. Cyr 354 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. St. Cyr 354 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Wahlberg, d at 416 ; State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 92
  • State v. Tiessen 354 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Wahlberg, d at 416 ; State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 92
  • State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
    State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90
  • State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
    ntoxication at the time of a killing may properly be considered in determining whether he acted with premeditation, but in adopting that rule, it reaffirmed the rule that the fact that a defendant had been drinking alcoholic beverages prior to the killing does not raise a presumption that he was incapable of premeditation, id.; cf. State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 92 , (“The mere fact of a person’s drinking does not create a presumption of intoxication, and the possibility of intoxication does not c
  • State v. Neumann 262 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Neumann 262 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1978
    In State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 92 , we said: “The mere fact of a person’s drinking does not create a presumption of intoxication, and the possibility of intoxication does not create the presumption that a person is rendered incapable of intending to do a certain act.
  • State v. Jacobs 192 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Jacobs 192 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 1971
    In State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 92 , we said: “* * * The mere fact of a person’s drinking does not create a presumption of intoxication, and the possibility of intoxication does not create the presumption that a person is rendered incapable of intending to do a certain act.” *44 In State ex rel.
  • State v. Keenan 184 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Keenan 184 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
    State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785 ; State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90 , 151 N. W. (2d) 769 ; Adler v. State, 284 Minn. 31 , 169 N. W. (2d) 233 .
  • State v. Dinneen 184 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Dinneen 184 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1971
    State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90 , 151 N. W. (2d) 769 .
  • State v. Clark 176 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Clark 176 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1970
    State v. Gluff, supra; 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. Lund, 277 Minn. 90 , 151 N. W. (2d) 769 ; State v. Schumann, 280 Minn. 48 , 157 N. W. (2d) 758 .
  • State v. Boerner 157 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Boerner 157 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1968
    Moriarty v. Tahash, 261 Minn. 426 , 112 N. W. (2d) 816 ; see, also, State v. Garrity, 277 Minn. 111 , 151 N. W. (2d) 773 ; State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90 , 151 N. W. (2d) 769 .
  • State Ex Rel. Turner v. Tahash 156 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1968
  • State Ex Rel. Turner v. Tahash 156 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1968
    As we said in State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 92 , 151 N. W. (2d) 769 , 771: “* * * Defendant’s entire argument on this issue is based upon mere supposition and possibility.
  • State v. Roberts 156 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Roberts 156 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1968
    See, State v. Mathiasen, 273 Minn. 372 , 141 N. W. (2d) 805 ; cf. State v. Mickens, 276 Minn. 343 , 150 N. W. (2d) 30 ; State v. Blankenship, 277 Minn. 32 , 151 N. W. (2d) 410 ; see, also, State v. Ferraro, 277 Minn. 204 , 152 N. W. (2d) 183 ; State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785 ; State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90 , 151 N. W. (2d) 769 ; State ex rel.
  • State Ex Rel. Terry v. Tahash 153 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1967
  • State Ex Rel. Terry v. Tahash 153 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1967
    In State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 92 , 151 N. W. (2d) 769, 771 , this court stated: “* * * The mere fact of a person’s drinking does not create a presumption of intoxication, and the possibility of intoxication does not create the presumption that a person is rendered incapable of intending to do a certain act.” In the instant case relator testified
  • State Ex Rel. Oney v. Tahash 152 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1967
  • State Ex Rel. Oney v. Tahash 152 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1967
    8 State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90 , 151 N. W. (2d) 769 .