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. Paulick, 151 N.W.2d 591.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Randolph 800 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Randolph 800 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2011
    Accordingly, “safeguarding the rights of criminal defendants is a historical and constitutional function of the judicial branch.” ( State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140, 150 , ).
  • State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
    (exercising our supervisory-powers to require the recording of custodial interrogations in order to afford “ ‘adequate protection of the accused’s right to counsel, his right against self incrimination and, ultimately, his right to a fair trial,”) (quoting Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156, 1159-60 (Alaska 1985)); State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140, 150 , (holding that the authority to grant or refuse the request of law-enforcement officers to initiate criminal procedures is a function that the judic
  • State v. Kuhlman 722 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Kuhlman 722 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    Similarly, in State v. Paulick, the supreme court observed that Hoben “held that traffic violations were a matter of statewide concern and must be dealt with in a uniform manner.” 277 Minn. 140, 145
  • City of St. Paul v. Whidby 203 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1972
  • City of St. Paul v. Whidby 203 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1972
    % ‡ # % ‡ “Finally, in State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140, 150 , 151 N. W. *140 (2d) 591, 598 [1967], in dealing with the issuance of warrants for arrests, we said: ‘The conclusion is inescapable that under the State and Federal Constitutions we can no longer draw a rational distinction between arrests made for misdemeanors and those made for felonies.
  • State v. Leininger 176 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Leininger 176 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1970
    Relying on our decisions in State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140 , 151 N. W. (2d) 591 , and State v. Borst, 278 Minn. 388 , 154 N. W. (2d) 888 , relator now contends that he is entitled to a jury trial in the municipal court as a matter of constitutional right.
  • State v. Limberg 175 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Limberg 175 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1970
    These are makeweight arguments which are controlled by prior decisions of our court in State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140 , 151 N. W. (2d) 591 , and State ex rel.
  • City of St. Paul v. Page 173 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1969
  • City of St. Paul v. Page 173 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1969
    We are of the opinion that the decision is here governed by the broad principles we adopted in State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140 , 151 N. W. (2d) 591 ; and State v. Borst, 278 Minn. 388 , 154 N. W. (2d) 888 .
  • State v. Miernik 170 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Miernik 170 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1969
    Since the constitutional safeguards against the in *320 vasion of privacy apply with equal force to one charged with a misdemeanor, State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140 , 151 N. W. (2d) 291 , we hold that defendant’s motion to dismiss should have been granted.
  • State v. Mitchell 163 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Mitchell 163 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1968
    Duhn v. Tahash, supra; State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140 , 151 N. W. (2d) 591 ; and City of St.
  • State v. Freitag 161 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Freitag 161 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1968
    State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140 , 151 N. W. (2d) 591 ; note, also, State v. Borst, 278 Minn. 388 , 154 N. W. (2d) 888 ; State v. Illingworth, 278 Minn. 434 , 154 N. W. (2d) 687 .
  • State v. Thomas 156 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Thomas 156 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1968
    However, appellant cites State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140 , 151 N. W. (2d) 591 , as authority for the proposition that the court applies criminal, constitutional standards to municipal prosecutions.
  • State v. Borst 154 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Borst 154 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1967
    Finally, in State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140, 150 , 151 N. W. (2d) 591, 598 , in dealing with the issuance of warrants for arrests, we said: “The conclusion is inescapable that under the State and Federal Constitutions we can no longer draw a rational distinction between arrests *397 made for misdemeanors and those made for felonies.
  • City of St. Paul v. Tobler 153 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1967
  • City of St. Paul v. Tobler 153 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1967
    Duhn v. Tahash, 275 Minn. 377 , 147 N. W. (2d) 382 , and State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140 , 151 N. W. (2d) 591 , is that determination of probable cause for arrest is a judicial function that cannot constitutionally be delegated to clerks.