State v. Alm

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 17, 1956

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1956-02-17

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 1966

9 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““* * * The motion [to dismiss the appeal] is made upon the ground that the notice of appeal was not served either upon the county attorney or the attorney general. Defendant concedes that such service was not made. The appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Alm

Relies on State v. Newman · First National Bank v. Stetson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1956-02-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 Plaintiff moves for a dismissal of the appeal of the defendant from the order of the District Court of Kandiyohi County denying defendant’s petition for a writ of coram nobis. The motion is made upon the ground that the notice of appeal was not served either upon the county attorney or the attorney general. Defendant concedes that such service was- not made. The appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 2

¶2 See, M. S. A. 632.02, 605.03; State v. Besse, 160 Minn. 533, 200 N. W. 356; State v. Newman, 188 Minn. 461, 247 N. W. 576. Whether the review should be some other remedy than appeal we need not determine.