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. Paige, 256 N.W.2d 298.

68 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jermale Jerome Leonard, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jermale Jerome Leonard, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    d 298, 303 (Minn. 1977).
  • Followed A21-0480 Minn. 2023
  • A21-0480 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Instead, 2 - 97 (Minn. 1977).
  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
    See State v. Paige , (explaining that the pur pose of the permit-to-carry statute is “to prevent the posse ssion of firearms in places wh ere they are most likely to cause harm in the wrong hands, i.e., in public places where their discharge may injure or kill intended or unin tended victims”); see also Minn. Stat. §
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    See, e.g. , Larson v. Degner , (raising issues for appeal in a reply brief is “not proper practice and is not to be permitted”); (declining to consider an issue raised for the first time in a reply brief).
  • State v. Black 919 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Black 919 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    The supreme court rejected that argument, noting that in State v. Paige , it had determined that "the 'without a permit' language" in Minn. Stat. § 624.714 , subd.
  • State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    Timberlake reaffirmed the supreme court’s that the “without a permit” language in Minn. Stat. § 624.714 (2006), which prohibits carrying weapons in public without a permit, does not add another element to the 6 crime, but rather creates an exception that requires the defendant to present evidenc
  • State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
    we held that the “without first having obtained a permit” language did not add an element to the crime of possession of a pistol in a public place.
  • State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
    (reaffirming the interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 624.714 ).
  • State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    la, is “properly characterized as a ‘general prohibition’ on the possession of firearms in public because ‘[a]nyone having a firearm in a public place may be prosecuted if he has no permit.’ ” Timberlake, d at 394 ().
  • Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
  • Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008
    l in a motor vehicle * ⅜ * without first having obtained a permit to carry the pistol is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.” We first construed this language in State v. Paige and concluded that “[t]he statute is * * * properly characterized as a ‘general prohibition’ ” on the possession of firearms in public because “[a]nyone having a firearm in a public place may be prosecuted if he has no permit.” (“[Possession of a pistol without a permit [is] a crime * * *.”).
  • State v. Burg 648 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Burg 648 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 2002
    Although we have not universally applied this rule, -04 (Minn.1977) (discussing the criminal offense of possession of a pistol in a public place without a permit and stating that the phrase “without first having ob *679 tained a permit” was an “exception” to the offense, rather than an element), our more recent cases have consistently treated such language as creat
  • State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Linville 598 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Linville 598 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Taylor 594 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Taylor 594 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    The supreme court has held that having a valid permit is an affirmative defense for which the defendant has a burden “to come forward with some evidence of a permit.”
  • State v. Hicks 583 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Hicks 583 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    (stating purpose of Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Holmes 569 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Holmes 569 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
    By placing on the defendant an initial burden of production, "the state's difficulty in ‘proving a negative’ is alleviated, making it reasonable for the state to disprove the defense.” cited in Charlton, d at 31 .
  • State v. Brodie 529 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Brodie 529 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • In Re Appeal of Denial of Young 521 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • In Re Appeal of Denial of Young 521 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Larson 502 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Larson 502 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Poupard 471 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Poupard 471 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    a case interpreting the language of section 624.714, the supreme court ruled that the language “without a permit” did not constitute an element of the crime, but rather an exception to the rule.
  • State v. Bluhm 457 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Bluhm 457 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Application of Hoffman 430 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Langaas 426 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Langaas 426 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. DeLegge 390 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1986