Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223.

21 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. John Lee Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, e.g., State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223, 232 (1865) (“Where the party has not retreated from or attempted to shun the combat, but has as in this case unnecessarily entered into it, his act is not one of self-defense.”); (declining to extend the castle doctrine where it “might encourage, rather than discou
State of Minnesota v. Devondre Trevon Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2024
unnecessarily entered into it, his act is not one of self-defense.” State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223, 232, 10 Gil.
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2024
In State v. Shippey , we stated, “Where the party has not retreated from or attempted to shun the combat, but has as in this case unnecessarily entered into it, his act is not one of self-defen[s]e.” 10 Minn. 223, 232 (1865).
Minn. 2023
In Johnson, we recognized that the Advisory Committee Comment itself highlighted that the self-defense statute contained at section 609.06 was intended to “state[] the present Minnesota law as expressed in State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223 (Gil.
State of Minnesota v. Daquan Ossie Bradley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Robinson, d at 239 (favorably citing caselaw stating that when a killing is “effected with a deadly weapon, the provocation must be great indeed” (quoting State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223, 230, 10 Gil.
State v. Galvan 912 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2018
State v. Galvan 912 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2018
cf. State v. Shippey , 10 Minn. 223 , 229 (1865) (explaining the difference between heat-of-passion manslaughter and intentional murder).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Devens 852 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Devens 852 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 2014
State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223, 232 (Gil.
State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999
State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999
See, -03 (Minn.1980); State v. Graham, 292 Minn. 308, 310-12 , -45 (1972); State v. Baker, 280 Minn. 518, 521-24 , -43 (1968); State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223 (1865).
State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
ditionally, in an older ease we stated: To determine on the sufficiency of the provocation to mitigate the killing from murder to manslaughter, the instrument or weapon with which the homicide was effected must be taken into consideration; for if it was effected with a deadly weapon, the provocation must be great indeed to lower the grade of the crime from murder; [[Image here]] State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223 (Gil.178) (1865).
Judd v. City of St. Cloud 272 N.W. 577 Minn. 1936
State ex rel. Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. City of Ely 151 N.W. 545 Minn. 1915
State v. Lautenschlager 22 Minn. 514 Minn. 1876
State v. Lautenschlager 22 Minn. 514 Minn. 1876
State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223 ; State v. Hoyt, 13 Minn. 132, 149 .
State v. Dee 14 Minn. 35 Minn. 1869
State v. Gut 13 Minn. 341 Minn. 1868
State v. Gut 13 Minn. 341 Minn. 1868
State vs. Shippy, 10 Minn. 223.
State v. Hoyt 13 Minn. 132 Minn. 1868