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. Ibarra, 355 N.W.2d 125.

37 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    incl ud[es] the element of intent to defraud.” Hill v. State , (citing State v. Ibarra , ).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • In the Matter of the Appeal by Kind Heart Daycare, Inc. of the Order of License Revocation and … Minn. 2017
    In support, –32 (Minn. 1984), for the proposition that “the amount of assistance a person is ‘entitled to’ refers to the amount of assistance the person was eligible for absent the misrepresentation.” Appellants point out that enrolled children were actually absent in many of the erroneous CCAP billings, and that Salim w
  • State v. Smith 899 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2017
  • State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Colvin 629 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Colvin 629 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Ring 554 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Ring 554 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Harvey 547 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Harvey 547 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    For the proposition that the restitution award should equal the full amount of AFDC disbursed, the State relies on the supreme court’s
  • State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Hill v. State 483 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 1992
  • Hill v. State 483 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 1992
    Our welfare fraud statute has been interpreted as including the element of intent to defraud, whereas the federal false statement statute apparently does not include the element of intent to defraud.
  • In Re the Welfare of J.G.B. 473 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • In Re the Welfare of J.G.B. 473 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Kobow 466 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Kobow 466 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Olson 459 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Olson 459 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Thompson 413 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Thompson 413 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Skinner 403 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Skinner 403 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Our review of sufficiency of the evidence is limited to ascertaining whether the trier of fact gave “due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the State’s burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt * * ( ).
  • State v. Sollman 402 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Sollman 402 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Appellate courts must determine if the trial court, “ ‘giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty’ of the offense charged.” ().
  • State v. Stoffel 392 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Stoffel 392 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Knowlton 383 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Knowlton 383 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1986
    Thus, this court is limited to ascertaining whether the trial court, “ ‘giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty’ of the offense charged.” ().
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
    State v. Combs, 292 Minn. 317, 320 , State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Nelson 355 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Nelson 355 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1984
    This same due process challenge to the AFDC eligibility standard, “continued absence,”