Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Knox, 250 N.W.2d 147.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Emanuel Garza Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Emanuel Garza Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Thirteen years after it decided Jones, the court more specifically held, “Under [Minnesota Statutes section] 609.485, the acts must be intentional and voluntary in order for the departure to constitute an escape.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This offense is not a specific-intent crime, as “the only intent required to constitute the crime of escape is the intent to do the act which results in the departure from custody.” see also State v. Knox, 311 Minn. 314, 322, (stating that acts constituting escape-from-custody offense “must be intentional and voluntary”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The offense is not a specific-intent crime: “the only intent required to constitute the crime of escape is the intent to do the act which results in the departure from custody.” see State v. Knox , 311 Minn. 314, 322, d 147, 154 (1976) (stating that the acts that constitute the offense of esca pe from custody “must be intentional and voluntary”).
State of Minnesota v. Galen Dale Littlewind Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Galen Dale Littlewind Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The supreme court applied this rule and qualification to the crime of escape and concluded that “the only intent required to constitute the crime of escape is the intent to do the act which results in the departure from custody.” see also State v. Knox, 311 Minn. 314, 322, 3 (stating that “[u]nder [section] 609.485, the acts must be intentional and voluntary in order for the departure to constitute an escape”); (stating that “legislature does not intend a
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The supreme court has stated that “[t]he concept that a person who has been both civilly committed and sentenced to a term of imprisonment might be in the custody of both the Department of Public Welfare and the commissioner of corrections has been expressly embraced by this court.”2 State v. Knox, 311 Minn. 314, 319, (examining a situation where the appellant was civilly committed as mentally ill while imprisoned and was simultaneously serving his civil and criminal commitments); -03 (Minn. App
State v. Lewandowski 443 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Lewandowski 443 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Beito, d at 647 ; State v. Knox, 311 Minn. 314, 316 , (prisoner transferred from state prison to Minnesota Security Hospital at St.
Headbird v. State 375 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Headbird v. State 375 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Knox, 311 Minn. 314
Good Neighbor Care Center v. City of Little Canada 357 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Good Neighbor Care Center v. City of Little Canada 357 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State by Spannaus v. Hopf (legislative classification must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective); State v. Knox, 311 Minn. 314, 322
Naylor v. Minnesota Daily 342 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 1984
State v. Beito 332 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1983
State v. Beito 332 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1983
Cf. State v. Knox, 311 Minn. 314 , (inmate on medical parole to security hospital is not on “parole” within the meaning of word “parole” as that term is used in the exception subdivision).
State v. Linder 304 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1981
State v. Linder 304 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1981
State v. Knox, 311 Minn. 314, 323 , State v. Bott, 310 Minn at 334, d at 51 .
State v. Bauer 299 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1980
State v. Bauer 299 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1980
See State v. Knox, 311 Minn. 314, 328
City of Winona v. Policeman's Relief Ass'n of Winona 281 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 1979
City of Winona v. Policeman's Relief Ass'n of Winona 281 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 1979
As summarized by this court in State v. Knox, 311 Minn. 314, 322 , the Equal Protection Clause, U.S.Const.
Kossak v. Stalling 277 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1979
Kossak v. Stalling 277 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1979
See, also, State v. Knox, 311 Minn. 314
State v. Vail 274 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1979
State v. Vail 274 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1979
State v. Corarito 268 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1978
State v. Corarito 268 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1978
Minnesota cases applying this test include State v. Widell, Minn., State v. Knox, Minn.
Papenhausen v. Schoen 268 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1978
Papenhausen v. Schoen 268 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1978
As we observed in State v. Knox, Minn., the term “medical parole” has no technical significance.