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. Schweppe, 237 N.W.2d 609.

182 citing documents.

  • State v. Witucki 420 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Witucki 420 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Johnson, d at 288 (citing State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395 , ).
  • State v. Begbie 415 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Begbie 415 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The word “purpose” in the context of this statute means “aim, objective, or intention.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 400
  • Bregier v. National Family Insurance Co. 411 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Bregier v. National Family Insurance Co. 411 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395
  • State v. Marchand 410 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Marchand 410 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    In the context of this statute, “purpose” means “aim, objective or intention.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 398
  • State v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395
  • State v. Lavastida 366 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Lavastida 366 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    The instructions that were given on terroristic threats were taken from the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 398-400 , -14 (1975), and were proper instructions.
  • State v. Hartwig 355 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Hartwig 355 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401
  • State v. Fischer 354 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Fischer 354 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    In the leading Minnesota case involving terroristic threats, the Minnesota Supreme Court allowed evidence of the defendant’s prior homosexual relationship with the victim as “bearing upon the relationship between the accused and the victim and [establishing] a motive for the commission of the offense charged.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 402
  • State v. Hatlestad 347 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Hatlestad 347 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 404 , State v. Johnson, supra.
  • State v. Johnson 322 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Johnson 322 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 1982
    7.02 specifically provides that the so-called Spreigl notice of intent to use other-crime evidence “need not include offenses for which [defendant] has been previously prosecuted or those that may be offered in rebuttal of the defendant’s character witnesses or as part of the occurrence or episode out of which the offense charged against defendant arose.” As stated in State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 404 , “The purpose underlying the Spreigl notice procedure is to ensure that a defendant is not
  • Liffrig v. Independent School Dist. No. 442 292 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1980
  • Liffrig v. Independent School Dist. No. 442 292 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1980
    State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401
  • In re the Appeal in Pinal County, Juvenile Action No. 55 600 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Ray 273 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Ray 273 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1978
    See, State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395 , State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116
  • State v. Taylor 264 N.W.2d 157 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Alexander 259 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Alexander 259 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1977
    See, State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395
  • State v. Woodard 256 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Woodard 256 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1977
    See, State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395
  • State v. Diamond 241 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Diamond 241 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1976
    State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395