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. Fulford, 187 N.W.2d 270.

25 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    See State v. Fulford, 290 Minn. 236, 238-39, -73 (1971) (concluding that evidence determined to be properly admitted did not violate defendant’s right to due process).
  • State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
  • In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    The district court also cited State v. Fulford, 290 Minn. 236 , for the principle that when police are where they have a legal right to be, they may photograph the area that is in plain view.
  • State v. Whaley 389 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Whaley 389 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See also State v. Fulford, 290 Minn. 236
  • State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
    In State v. Fulford, 290 Minn. 236 , this court held that photographs of items in plain view are admissible if the officers were legitimately on the premises.
  • State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
    State v. Fulford, 290 Minn. 236
  • State v. Taylor 258 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Taylor 258 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1977
    State v. Houff, Minn., 243 * State v. Fulford, 290 Minn. 236
  • State v. Turner 239 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Turner 239 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1976
    The state responds, citing State v. Fulford, 290 Minn. 236 , that the marijuana was properly introduced to impeach defendant’s testimony that all he had with him in his car was chicken, and that the only stimulant he used was alcohol.
  • State v. Meadows 226 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Meadows 226 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1975
    Under reasoning which we used in State v. Fulford, 290 Minn. 236 , it is arguable that this opened the door to cross-examination by the state as to those events.
  • Younghans v. City of St. Paul 222 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1974
  • Younghans v. City of St. Paul 222 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1974
    The decision of the compensation judge and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission is based on the testimony of a witness whose version of the facts is completely discredited in all major respects by her testimony in the prosecution of Luther William Fulford whose conviction of murder in causing the death of the employee we affirmed in State v. Fulford, 290 Minn. 236
  • State v. Martin 211 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Martin 211 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1973
    The state, on the other hand, relies on State v. Fulford, 290 Minn. 236
  • State v. Cox 200 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Cox 200 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1972
    See, State v. Fulford, 290 Minn. 236 , (knife seized by one of several arresting officers from suspect’s coat on a chair a few feet from his person at the time of his arrest); Simberg v. State, 288 Minn. 175 , (search of suspect’s trousers on chair 6 feet from point of arrest) .
  • State v. Boldra 195 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Boldra 195 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1972
    State v. Markuson, 261 Minn. 515 , State v. Fulford, 290 Minn. 236