Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ibarra, 355 N.W.2d 125.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Cayla Jean Sandven Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Nadeem Malik Minn. Ct. App. 2020
incl ud[es] the element of intent to defraud.” Hill v. State , (citing State v. Ibarra , ).
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Lashaun Robertson 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,”