Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jenness v. School District No. 31, Washington Co., 12 Minn. 448.

25 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Tamara Ann Fonoti, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
No. 31, Washington Cty, 12 Minn. 448, 449, 12 Gil.
State v. Keaton 104 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1960
State v. Keaton 104 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1960
6 See, State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 178 (223); State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 448 (538); State v. Wormack, 150 Minn. 249 , ; State v. Miller, 151 Minn. 386 , .
State Ex Rel. Carlson v. Strunk 18 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1945
State Ex Rel. Carlson v. Strunk 18 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1945
Addison v. Williams, 25 Minn. 340, 343 ; State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 448 (538).
State v. Simenson 262 N.W. 638 Minn. 1935
State v. Simenson 262 N.W. 638 Minn. 1935
liability except upon proof that at the time of committing the alleged criminal act he was laboring under such a defect of reason, from one of said causes, as not to know the nature of his act, or that it was wrong.” It is further provided by § 9913 of the statutes: “Every person is presumed to be responsible for his acts, and the burden of rebutting such presumption is upon him.” State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 448 (538) ; State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 315 (341); State v. Hanley, 31 Minn. 430 , .
Canty v. Bockenstedt 212 N.W. 905 Minn. 1927
Canty v. Bockenstedt 212 N.W. 905 Minn. 1927
State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 448 (538); Burt v. Winona St.
Leystrom v. City of Ada 125 N.W. 507 Minn. 1910
Leystrom v. City of Ada 125 N.W. 507 Minn. 1910
Watson v. Walker, 33 N. H. 131; State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 448 (538).
State v. Prolow 108 N.W. 873 Minn. 1906
State v. Prolow 108 N.W. 873 Minn. 1906
In State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 448 (538), Wilson, C. J., said: “Every homicide is presumed unlawful, and when the mere act of killing is-proven, and nothing more, the presumption is that it was intentional and malicious.” So in State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 178 (273), 88 Am.
State v. Framness 45 N.W. 1098 Minn. 1890
State v. Framness 45 N.W. 1098 Minn. 1890
As to the practice in this court, see, further, State v. Ryan, *492 13 Minn. 343 , (370;) State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 448 , (538, 544;) State v. Conway, 23 Minn. 291 ; Bilansky v. State, 3 Minn. 313 , (427.)
State v. Reid 39 N.W. 796 Minn. 1888
State v. Reid 39 N.W. 796 Minn. 1888
State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 448 , (538;) Loucks v. Chicago, M. & St.
State v. Hanley 26 N.W. 397 Minn. 1886
State v. Hanley 26 N.W. 397 Minn. 1886
Bonfanti v. State, 2 Minn. 99 , (123;) State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 448 , (538;) State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 315 , (341.)
Cain v. Libby 21 N.W. 739 Minn. 1884
Distinguished Cain v. Libby 21 N.W. 739 Minn. 1884
That case is clearly distinguishable from this, and the same remark applies to the case of State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 448 , (538.)
Burt v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad 18 N.W. 289 Minn. 1884
Burt v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad 18 N.W. 289 Minn. 1884
In State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 448 , (538,) the court held that the judge who held the court below, at the trial of the defendant, was at least a de facto officer, and that, until his right to the office should be determined in a direct proceeding for that purpose, it could not be questioned in a collateral proceeding.
Ryan v. School-District No. 13 8 N.W. 146 Minn. 1881
Ryan v. School-District No. 13 8 N.W. 146 Minn. 1881
Jenness v. School-district, 12 Minn. 448 .