Cited by

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

20 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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