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. Lasley, 236 N.W.2d 604.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Shriner 751 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Shriner 751 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
    3 See State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224, 232 , (citing the six factors outlined in Dorman for determining whether “exigent circumstances” justified entering a suspect’s home without a warrant).
  • State v. Alayon 454 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Alayon 454 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    Lohnes, d at 611 (quoting State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224, 232 , cert.
  • State v. Storvick 428 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Storvick 428 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1988
    In so holding, it relied on the 6-factor Dorman analysis, named after Dorman v. United States, 435 F.2d 385, 392-94 (D.C.Cir.1970), relied on in our opinion in State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224, 232
  • State v. Storvick 423 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Storvick 423 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224, 232
  • State v. Lau 409 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Williams 409 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Williams 409 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224, 233 , -10 (1975), cert.
  • State v. Lau 409 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224, 227 , cert.
  • State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
    See State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224, 228 , cert.
  • State v. Lohnes 344 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Lohnes 344 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
    In State v. Lasley, 306 *611 Minn. 224, cert.
  • State v. Hatcher 322 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Hatcher 322 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1982
    State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224 , cert.
  • State v. Gant 305 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Gant 305 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 1981
    See State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224 , cert.
  • State v. Bird 292 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Bird 292 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1980
    See State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224 , and State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384
  • State v. Hesse 281 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Hesse 281 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1979
    See, also, State v. Bettin, 309 Minn. 578 , State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224 , cert.
  • State v. Johnson 256 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Johnson 256 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1977
    If it appears from the examination that the witness understands the obligation of an oath and is capable of correctly narrating the facts to which his testimony relates, the witness is competent in fact and should be permitted to testify.” See, also, State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224 , State v. Whelan, 291 Minn. 83
  • Bradley v. Shaw 244 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1976
  • Bradley v. Shaw 244 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1976
    Defendant cites State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224 , as supporting its contention that Schmidt’s testimony *446 was admissible.
  • State v. Bettin 244 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Bettin 244 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1976
    Defendant’s first contention, that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay declarations of the victim as to who raped her is governed by this court’s decision in State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224 , where we held that it is always permissible for the state to show that the victim consistently identified the defendant in cases in which the victim testifies at trial and is therefore subject to cross-examination.