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. Tinklenberg, 194 N.W.2d 590.

25 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Hegstrom, d at 703 (quotation omitted) ().
  • State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    See State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271 , (defendant’s excessive speed, inattention, and lack of control over vehicle supported gross negligence); (both finding gross negligence where bad driving conduct was coupled with failure to maint
  • State v. Hegstrom 543 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Hegstrom 543 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    See State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271, 273 , (driver inattentiveness one factor in verdict for gross negligence).
  • State v. Miller 471 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Miller 471 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    In State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271, 273 , the supreme court found evidence the defendant drove at an excessive speed, was inattentive and lacked control over a vehicle was sufficient to support a gross negligence finding.
  • State v. Sanders 376 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Sanders 376 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 1985
    We have reaffirmed this statement in a number of eases, including State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271
  • State v. Nurmi 336 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Nurmi 336 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1983
    See, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271, 272-73
  • State v. Schluter 281 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Schluter 281 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1979
    State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271
  • State v. Moss 262 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Moss 262 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1978
    See, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271
  • State v. Bott 246 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Bott 246 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1976
    ich it is competent for a witness to describe in words, or where they are helpful as an aid to a verbal description of objects and conditions, provided they are relevant to some material issue; and they are not ren *338 dered inadmissible merely because they vividly bring to jurors the details of a shocking crime or incidentally tend to arouse passion or prejudice.” See also State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271, 272 , State v. Steeves, 279 Minn. 298, 308
  • State v. Tereau 229 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Tereau 229 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1975
    See, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271 , Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419 , Grapentin v. Harvey, 262 Minn. 222
  • State v. Richmond 214 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Richmond 214 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1974
    See, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271 , State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81
  • Moteberg v. Johnson 210 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1973
  • Moteberg v. Johnson 210 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1973
    See, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271 , State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39
  • State v. Dingfelder 204 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Dingfelder 204 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1973
    On the issue of admissibility of the photographs, see, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271 , and State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81