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. Kinn, 178 N.W.2d 888.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Martinson 422 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Martinson 422 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    at 63 (quoting State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31, 35 , ).
  • State v. Herem 384 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Herem 384 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 1986
    The court of appeals relied in part on dictum in State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31, 35 , that a Miranda warning is required once the officer has focused his suspicion on the suspect and decided to take him into custody.
  • State v. Stai 381 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Stai 381 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has concluded that an officer can proceed without a warning statement “until he has reasonable grounds to believe both that a crime has been committed and that the defendant is the culprit.” State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31, 35
  • State v. Herem 371 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Herem 371 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31
  • Steinberg v. State, Department of Public Safety 357 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Steinberg v. State, Department of Public Safety 357 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31, 35-36
  • State v. Kvam 336 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Kvam 336 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1983
    State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 402 , State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31
  • State v. Kulseth 333 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Kulseth 333 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1983
    292 , 30 L.Ed.2d 257 (1971); State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31
  • State v. Cavegn 294 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Cavegn 294 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1980
    State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 470 , State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31
  • State v. Schenk 249 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Schenk 249 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1977
    Jankord v. State, 290 Minn. 168 , State v. Kinn, 288 Minn 31
  • State v. Davis 233 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Davis 233 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1975
    Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 554 , State v. LaFrance, 302 Minn. 245 , State v. Hall, 286 Minn. 424, 429 , State v. Wajda, 296 Minn. 29 , State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31, 34
  • State v. Raymond 232 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Raymond 232 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1975
    State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31
  • State v. Hicks 222 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Hicks 222 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1974
    To obtain review of a pretrial order to suppress evidence pursuant to § 632.11, the prosecution must show that “the trial court’s adverse order has effectively prevented the chance of a successful prosecution because there is a lack of evidence, other than that suppressed, which would permit a successful prosecution.” State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31, 34
  • State v. Dakota 217 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Dakota 217 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1974
    See, e. g., State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 470 , State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111 , State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31
  • City of St. Paul v. Hurd 216 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1974
  • City of St. Paul v. Hurd 216 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1974
    See, State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31 , State v. Maki, 291 Minn. 427
  • State v. Martin 212 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Martin 212 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1973
    As stated in State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31, 35 , in assessing when this occurs: “* * * The police are not required to give a Miranda warning to every bystander or person in the vicinity of a happening *473 which it is their duty to investigate.
  • State v. Beckman 209 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Beckman 209 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1973
    See, State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31
  • State v. Mize 202 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Mize 202 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1972
    State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31, 35
  • State v. Hoskins 193 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Hoskins 193 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1972
    State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31
  • Jankord v. State 186 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1971
  • Jankord v. State 186 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1971
    1 We so held by inference in State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31 , 178 N. W. (2d) 888 .