Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. King, 257 N.W.2d 693.

42 citing documents.

Joel Armen Underwood, III v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2025
Joel Armen Underwood, III v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2025
All members of an ordered society are presumed either to know the law or, at least, to have acquainted themselves with those laws that are likely to affect their usual activities.” –98 (Minn. 1977) (citations omitted)
Joel Armen Underwood, III. v. State of Minnesota 8 N.W.3d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Joel Armen Underwood, III. v. State of Minnesota 8 N.W.3d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
at 644-45 (-98 (Minn. 1977)).
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Knowledge of operability is irrelevant because “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” and “[c]riminal intent 10 does not require proof of knowledge of the existence .
Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
10(2) (2018) (generally defining “assault” as “the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another”); -98 (Minn. 1977) (stating that citizens are presumed to know the law); see also Mitchell v. Mitchell, 47 N.W.
State of Minnesota v. Juanel Anthony Mikulak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Juanel Anthony Mikulak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
All members of an ordered society are presumed either to know the law or, at least, to have acquainted themselves with those laws that are likely to affect their usual activities.” -98 (Minn. 1977) (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-98 (Minn. 1977) (“All members of an ordered society are presumed either to know the law or, at least, to have acquainted themselves with those laws that are likely to affect their usual activities.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[I]gnorance of the law is no excuse.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 693, 697 (Minn. 1977) (stating that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”); cf. Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Shane 883 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Shane 883 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“It is a deeply rooted concept of our jurisprudence that ignorance of the law is no excuse.” see 8 also State v. Welch, 21 Minn. 22, 26-27 (1874) (applying this principle in election law, holding that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a charge of voting more than once in a local election).
Patricia Briggs, individually and o/b/o Eddie Briggs v. Officer Don Rasicot, individually and as aCrookston Police Department Officer 867 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patricia Briggs, individually and o/b/o Eddie Briggs v. Officer Don Rasicot, individually and as aCrookston Police Department Officer 867 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
All members of an ordered society are presumed either to know the law or, at least, to have acquainted themselves with those 7 laws that are likely to affect their usual activities.” -98 (Minn. 1977) (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Thomas Conlin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Thomas Conlin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But appellant’s personal belief as to the legality of his acts is not the issue: “All members of an ordered society are presumed either to know the law or, at least, to have acquainted themselves with those laws that are likely to affect their usual activities.” –98 (Minn. 1977); see also Albrecht v. Sell, 260 Minn. 566, 569– 70, (“[U]nder well-established principles of law [individuals] are conclusively presumed to be aware of existing statutes and of the fact that revisions in them occur from
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
” Albrecht v. Sell, 260 Minn. 566, 569-70 , -98 (Minn.1977) (“All members of an ordered society are presumed either to know the law or, at least, to have acquainted themselves with those laws that are likely to affect their usual activities.”).
State v. Jacobson 697 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2005
State v. Jacobson 697 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2005
604 , 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991)
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 2004
State v. Grillo 661 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Grillo 661 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-98 (Minn.1977) (holding ignorance of the law is no excuse, and an individual cannot be heard to complain that he was without notice of a criminal statute when, had appellant made an effort to ascertain information, he would have been put on adequate notice).
State v. Calmes 632 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2001
State v. Calmes 632 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2001
Moreover, because citizens are presumed to know the law, -98 (Minn.1977), once this court issued its decisions in Humes and Garcia holding that the conditional release term required by section 609.346, subdivision 5(a), was mandatory and nonwaivable, Calmes could not have developed a reasonable crystallized expectation of finality in a sentence that did not include a ma
State v. Verschelde 595 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1999
State v. Verschelde 595 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1999
In reaching its decision, which allowed the prosecution of a person for possession of a controlled substance listed in the regulatory rules, but not in the statute.
State v. Bowen 560 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Bowen 560 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bowen, who was represented by counsel in pleading guilty, is presumed to know the law making it a felony to engage in a “pattern of harassing conduct.” (presumption that citizens know the law).
Mid-City Hotel Associates v. Hennepin County Board of Commissioners 516 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Mid-City Hotel Associates v. Hennepin County Board of Commissioners 516 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 460 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Vernon 283 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 1979
State v. Vernon 283 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 1979
1977 Cumulative Annual Pocket Part, p. 162.”
Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardware Ass'n v. State 279 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1979
Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardware Ass'n v. State 279 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1979
In reviewing the power to designate controlled substances delegated by the legislature to the State Board of Pharmacy, that the legislature intended to delegate rule-making authority to the Board to revise the statutory schedules enumerating controlled substances.