Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ruud, 259 N.W.2d 567.

97 citing documents.

State v. Starfield 472 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Saybolt 461 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Saybolt 461 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-79 (Minn.1977), cert, denied, 435 U.S. 996 , 98 S.Ct.
State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
(warrant authorized an extensive search of virtually all of the business records of a licensed nursing home), cert.
State v. Jensen 448 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Jensen 448 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
This court has also said that “[i]t is beyond dispute [defendant] is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.”
Johnson v. State 421 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Johnson v. State 421 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Peterson 411 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Peterson 411 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The court reasoned: “If that is true, then he would not have the intent to cause the fear, and no assault was committed.” “It is beyond dispute that a party is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.” ce rt.
State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“It is beyond dispute that a party is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.” ce rt.
State v. Richardson 393 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1986
State v. Richardson 393 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1986
State v. Safranski 391 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Safranski 391 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Daniels 379 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Daniels 379 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Mickelson 378 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Mickelson 378 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The rule in Minnesota is that “a party is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.” (emphasis added), cert.
State v. Coleman 373 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1985
State v. Coleman 373 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1985
The defendant further asserts that his requested instruction on theft by swindle should have been given because it represented his “theory of the case,”
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
State v. Pacholl 361 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Pacholl 361 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Coleman 356 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Coleman 356 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Gayles 327 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1982
State v. Gayles 327 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1982
State v. Williams 324 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1982
State v. Williams 324 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1982
State v. Molin 288 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1979
State v. Molin 288 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1979
-77 (Minn.1979), where, in rejecting a claim by the defendant on appeal that the trial court should have given an instruction that homicide is excusable when committed by accident, we stated as follows: It is true that “a party is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.”
State v. Schluter 281 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1979
State v. Schluter 281 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1979
It is true that “a party is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if *177 there is evidence to support it.”
State v. Strimling 265 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1978
State v. Strimling 265 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1978
For a more detailed discussion of the Rule 49 cost reporting system, see our recent decision in State v. Ruud, Minn.