Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Stangvik v. Tahash, 161 N.W.2d 667.

68 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Melvin Bilbro Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Bilbro Minn. 2025
A24-1308 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Milton K. Sanders, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Milton K. Sanders, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Tyler Douglas Flantz, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“[M]ultiple crimes against multiple victims [may] permit the imposition of more than one sentence.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
6 (stating that “the legislature did not intend in every case to immunize offenders from the consequences of separate crimes intentionally committed in a single episode against more than one individual”).
Minn. 2020
(recognizing that “multiple crimes against multiple victims permit the impos ition of more than one sentence ”).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 667, 672 -73 (Minn. 1968); Rhoades, d at 138-39.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
Stangvik v. Tahash , 281 Minn. 353 , , 672 (1968) ; see also State v. Prudhomme , 303 Minn. 376 , , 245 (1975) (explaining that "a different application of [ section 609.035 ] is appropriate where there are multiple victims"); State v. Krampotich , 282 Minn. 182 , , 776 n.7 (1968) (explaining that section 60
Tommie Relando Norwood v. State of Minnesota, Respondent./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Tommie Relando Norwood v. State of Minnesota, Respondent./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353, 359–60
State v. St. John 847 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. St. John 847 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353, 360
State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353, 360
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353, 359-60 , we established a “multiple-victims” exception to Minn.Stat.
State v. Skipintheday 717 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 2006
State v. Skipintheday 717 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 2006
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 358, 360
State v. Rhoades 690 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Rhoades 690 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353, 360 , (quoting Stangvik); (same).
State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353, 359-61 , -73 (1968) (holding separate sentences proper for separate murders intentionally inflicted on three victims).
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353, 360
State v. Swanson 498 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1993
State v. Secrest 437 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Secrest 437 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353, 360 , ).
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353, 361
State v. Eaton 292 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
State v. Eaton 292 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353, 360
State v. Olson 291 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1980
State v. Olson 291 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1980
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353 , State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394
State v. Rieck 286 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1979
State v. Rieck 286 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1979
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353, 360 , where we stated that “the legislature did not intend in every case to immunize offenders from the consequences of separate crimes intentionally committed in a single episode against more than one individual.” See also State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376
Bangert v. State 282 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1979
Bangert v. State 282 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1979
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353 , see, State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376
State v. DeFoe 280 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1979
State v. DeFoe 280 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1979
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353, 360 , where we stated that “the legislature did not intend in every case to immunize offenders from the consequences of separate crimes intentionally committed in a single episode against more than one individual.” See, also, State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376
State v. Hamilton 268 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1978
State v. Hamilton 268 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1978
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353 , and State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376 , to avoid this conclusion is misplaced.
State v. Gilbert 262 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1977
State v. Gilbert 262 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1977
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353
State v. Briggs 256 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1977
State v. Briggs 256 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1977
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353 , a multiple murder case, we rejected the *306 contention that the multiple concurrent terms violated § 609.035, which prohibits multiple punishment for multiple offenses committed as part of a single-behavioral incident.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by