Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lone, 361 N.W.2d 854.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Roald Dean Marth Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Roald Dean Marth Minn. Ct. App. 2025
4 By contrast, the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Lone stated that the value of the property obtained is “irrelevant.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-58, 861 (Minn. 1985) (affirming appellants’ theft-by-swindle convictions for using false representations to persuade customers to buy a water -removal system for their home s).
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
(holding that it is not a defense to theft by swindle to say that the victim received something of value); WL 1598849, at *5 (Minn. App. June 5, 2007) (“[A] claim of right is irrelevant to the crime of theft by swindle.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
the court analyzed a similar jury instruction.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
15, 1988), and State v. Lone
TCI Business Capital, Inc. v. Five Star American Die Casting, LLC, Brian T. Flynn 890 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 508, d at 147; (“[O]ne cannot commit a swindle if he honestly believes that what he is saying is true.
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“In theft by swindle, value becomes irrelevant.”); see also Pratt, d at 875.
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“In theft by swindle, value becomes irrelevant.”).
State v. Saybolt 461 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Saybolt 461 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
We get guidance as to the issue of value in a
State v. Kramer 441 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Kramer 441 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See generally, -60 (Minn.1985) (it is not a defense to a charge of swindle that the victim receives something of value); (evidence that defendant took cash deposits on sales of jeeps he never acquired was sufficient to establish a swindle).
State v. Ulvestad 414 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Ulvestad 414 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The Minnesota Supreme Court, however, has determined that “[i]n theft by swindle, value becomes irrelevant.”
State v. Litzinger 394 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1986
State v. Litzinger 394 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1986
e determined that the appropriate presumptive sentence for a woman who stole $40,000 from her employer *806 was 27 months), ($20,000 taken; maximum sentence of 32 months), (building destroyed, newspaper’s files destroyed, hundreds of people affected; maximum sentence of 51 months), (where presumptive sentence was 21 months stayed but this court, saying that the offense was a major economic offense, upheld a dispositional departure), (Court of Appeals upholding 45-month stayed sentence, a triple
State v. Ray 390 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Ray 390 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
a theft by swindle case, the supreme court stated that once the victim parts with money in reliance on false representations, whether anything of value was received in return is immaterial.