State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 31 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendant was first tried and acquitted under M.S.A. § 620.01, which was enacted under the authority of Minn. Const. art. 9, § 12. See, 2 M.S.A. p. 337; Farmers’ & Merchants’ State Bank of Ogilvie v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 3, 174 Minn. 286 , 219 N.W. 163 , 65 A.L.R. 1407 . Art. 9, § 12, as originally enacted, provided that “any failure to pay over or produce the state or school funds intrusted to such person, on demand, shall be held and taken to be prima facie evidence of such Embezzlement.” Section 620.01, which effectuated this constitutional provision, sets forth Four methods of proof sufficient to establish the One offense defined — misappropriation and falsification of accounts by public officers — in substance a felony. Under the constitutional definition, art. 9, § 12, the offense is synonymous with embezzlement and has been so regarded in all decisions of this court made thereunder, State v. Czizek, 38 Minn. 192 , 36 N.W. 457 ; State v. Ring, 29 Minn. 78 , 11 N.W. 233 ; State v. Baumhager, 28 Minn. 226 , 9 N.W. 704 ; Mims v. State, 26 Minn. 494 , 5 N.W. 369 ; State v. Munch, 22 Minn. 67 ; and evidence of wilful refusal of a public official to pay over to his successor public funds entrusted to him is sufficient to sustain a conviction therefor. State v. Czizek, 38 Minn. 192 , 36 N.W. 457 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Larson

2. ““* * * statute [§ 610.21] implements the constitutional provision against double jeopardy (Minn. Const, art. 1, § 7) but adds nothing to the scope of the prohibition therein contained. It is apparent that, in using the words act and omission, the legislature was using them in the restricted and consequential sense of a single and separate offense.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson

3. ““Any act or omission declared criminal and punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under only one of such provisions, and a conviction or acquittal under any one shall bar a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other provision.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson