Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite City of Mankato v. Arnold, 30 N.W. 305.

36 citing documents.

State v. Hoben 98 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1959
State v. Hoben 98 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1959
3 It was pointed out in City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62, 65 , , that: “Prosecutions for offenses against municipal by-laws * * * must necessarily be summary to be effective, * * We have held in numerous cases that in prosecutions involving the violation of a municipal ordinance, unlike a violation of a state statute, proof of guilt beyond a reasonable dou
State v. Ketterer 79 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1956
State v. Ketterer 79 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1956
Erickson v. West, 42 Minn. 147, 151 , (wherein the earlier decision of City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , , was qualified and distinguished), offenses involving the violation of municipal ordinances to which a penalty, such as fine or imprisonment, is attached as a punishment are “criminal” offenses within the literal meaning of that term as used in the constitutional provision which guarantees to the accus
State Ex Rel. Connolly v. Parks 273 N.W. 233 Minn. 1937
State Ex Rel. Connolly v. Parks 273 N.W. 233 Minn. 1937
City of Man-kato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , ; State v. Harris, 50 Minn. 128 , ; State v. Grimes, 83 Minn. 460 , ; State v. Broms, 139 Minn. 402 , ; State v. Nelson, 157 Minn. 506 , .
City of Red Wing v. Nibbe 199 N.W. 918 Minn. 1924
City of Red Wing v. Nibbe 199 N.W. 918 Minn. 1924
State v. Lee, 29 Minn. 445 , ; City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , ; State v. Sexton, 42 Minn. 154 , ; State v. Harris, 50 Minn. 128 , ; State v. Robitshek, 60 Minn. 123 , , 33 L. R. A. 33; State v. Grimes, 83 Minn. 460 , ; State v. Marciniak, 97 Minn. 355 , ; City of Madison v. Martin, 109 Minn. 2
State v. Nelson 196 N.W. 279 Minn. 1923
State v. Nelson 196 N.W. 279 Minn. 1923
City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , ; State v. Harris, 50 Minn. 128 , ; State v. Grimes, 83 Minn. 460 , .
State v. Broms 166 N.W. 771 Minn. 1918
State v. Broms 166 N.W. 771 Minn. 1918
City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , .
City of St. Paul v. Robinson 152 N.W. 777 Minn. 1915
City of St. Paul v. Robinson 152 N.W. 777 Minn. 1915
City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , ; State v. Harris, 50 Minn. 128 , ; State v. Grimes, 83 Minn. 460 , ; City of Madison v. Martin, 109 Minn. 292 , .
City of Madison v. Martin 123 N.W. 809 Minn. 1909
City of Madison v. Martin 123 N.W. 809 Minn. 1909
It is' true that in the case of City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , , it was said arguendo that such offenses “are not generally construed to be criminal cases in the proper sense of the term;” but the real basis of -the decision that the *294 defendant was not entitled to a jury trial was that they were petty offenses against municipal ordinances.
State v. Collins 120 N.W. 1081 Minn. 1909
State v. Collins 120 N.W. 1081 Minn. 1909
City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , ; State v. West, 42 Minn. 147 , ; State v. Harris, 50 Minn. 128 , .
State v. Swanson 119 N.W. 45 Minn. 1908
State v. Swanson 119 N.W. 45 Minn. 1908
We have not *290 overlooked City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , , and State v. Heck, 23 Minn. 549 .
State v. Marciniak 105 N.W. 965 Minn. 1906
State v. Marciniak 105 N.W. 965 Minn. 1906
City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62, 30 * ; State v. West, supra; State v. Harris, 50 Minn. 128 , ; State v. Grimes, 83 Minn. 460 , .
State v. Gill 95 N.W. 449 Minn. 1903
State v. Gill 95 N.W. 449 Minn. 1903
City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , .
State v. Grimes 86 N.W. 449 Minn. 1901
State v. Grimes 86 N.W. 449 Minn. 1901
See City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , ; State v. Harris, 50 Minn. 128 , ; State v. Robitshek, 60 Minn. 123 , .
State v. Robitshek 61 N.W. 1023 Minn. 1895
State v. Robitshek 61 N.W. 1023 Minn. 1895
Paul v. Smith, 27 Minn. 364 , ; State v. Lee, 29 Minn. 445 , ; City of Mankato,, v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , ; State v. West, 42 Minn. 147 , ; State v. Sexton, 42 Minn. 154 , ; State v. Harris, 50 Minn. 128 , .
State ex rel. Olson v. Brown 52 N.W. 935 Minn. 1892
State ex rel. Olson v. Brown 52 N.W. 935 Minn. 1892
What has been said heretofore in regard to the nature of the proceedings, as well as the views expressed in City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , ( 30 N. W. Rep.
State v. Harris 52 N.W. 387 Minn. 1892
State v. Harris 52 N.W. 387 Minn. 1892
This was the precise question involved in City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , ( 30 N. W. Rep.
State ex rel. Erickson v. West 43 N.W. 845 Minn. 1889
State ex rel. Erickson v. West 43 N.W. 845 Minn. 1889
In City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , ( 30 N. W. Rep.
In re Howes 38 N.W. 104 Minn. 1888
In re Howes 38 N.W. 104 Minn. 1888
404; City of Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62 , ( 30 N. W. Rep.