DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 192 N.W.2d 87.

24 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    State v. Dunkel , ( d 87, 92 (Minn. 1971 )).
  • State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Blake Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Blake Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    is not to be used to prove the character of the defendant or that the defendant acted in conformity with such character” and that the jury must not “convict the defendant on the basis of other unrelated incidents or misconduct.” See State v. Johnson, 291 Minn. 407, 415, d 87, 92 (1971) (stating the general rule that “any error which may occur by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence is cured when that evidence is stricken from the record and accompanied by a clear instruction to disregar
  • State v. Hickman 666 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Hickman 666 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 291 Minn. 407 , (holding that language in trial court memorandum issued following remand expressing intent to rule differently if supreme court reversed court of appeals could not be reviewed on appeal because it had no legal effect), review denied (
  • State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
    State v. Johnson, 291 Minn. 407, 412
  • Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-Op 478 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-Op 478 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    (quoting State v. Johnson, 291 Minn. 407, 412 , ).
  • State v. Doughty 472 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    As the Minnesota Supreme Court stated in State v. Johnson, 291 Minn. 407 , : While such statements, inadvertently or carelessly made, are unfortunate and have no place in a lawsuit, courts are reluctant to reverse a conviction or grant a new trial solely on the basis that prejudicial error has been committed by such statement or statements.
  • State v. Roy 408 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Roy 408 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See State v. Johnson, 291 Minn. 407
  • Johnson v. Engen 386 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Johnson v. Engen 386 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    ANALYSIS In State v. Johnson, 291 Minn. 407 , the trial court refused to allow the introduction of a videotape and an out-of-court experiment which allegedly duplicated the conditions at the time of the crime.
  • State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Johnson, 291 Minn. 407
  • Johnson v. State 331 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1983
  • Johnson v. State 331 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1983
    His convictions were affirmed in State v. Johnson, 291 Minn. 407
  • State v. Lindsey 284 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Lindsey 284 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1979
    State v. Johnson, 291 Minn. 407, 412
  • Larson v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc. 232 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
  • Larson v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc. 232 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
    Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16 , State v. Johnson, 291 Minn. 407