DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ellingson, 167 N.W.2d 55.

79 citing documents.

  • Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
  • Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
    In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[o]ur responsibility extends no further than to make a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt is sufficient to permit the jury to reach that conclusion.” State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
    Our responsibility extends no further than to make a painstaking review of the record to determine whether *532 the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt is sufficient to permit the jury to reach that conclusion.” State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Jackson 469 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Jackson 469 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Cichon 458 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Cichon 458 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Capers 451 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Capers 451 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    at 826-27 (quoting State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211 , ) (other citations omitted).
  • State v. Mosby 450 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Mosby 450 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Johnson 450 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Johnson 450 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1990
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Raymond 440 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Raymond 440 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1989
    On review, where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, this court makes a painstaking review of the record, State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211 , viewing it in the light most favorable to the verdict and assuming the jury disbelieved testimony in conflict with the result reached.
  • State v. Moore 433 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Moore 433 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    That the review process is to be “painstaking,” State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211 , does not change the fact that “the evidence, direct and circumstantial [is] viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt.” Id.
  • State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Formo 416 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Formo 416 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Marchand 410 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Marchand 410 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Okegbenro 409 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Okegbenro 409 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Richardson 393 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Richardson 393 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1986
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
    State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 186 , *662 State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Alowonle 356 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Alowonle 356 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208
  • State v. Nash 342 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Nash 342 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Darrow, 287 Minn. 230, 235 , State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211 , State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , , certiorari denied, 385 U.S. 817 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Housley 322 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Case 312 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Case 312 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 1981
    Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the state, State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208 , we find it to be sufficient.
  • State v. Turnipseed 297 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Turnipseed 297 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1980
    State v. Darrow, 287 Minn. 230, 235 , State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211 , State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , , certiorari denied, 385 U.S. 817 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
    State v. Darrow, 287 Minn. 230, 235 , State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211 , State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , , certiorari denied, 385 U.S. 817 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Hill 253 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977