State v. Bridgeforth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a lost tooth was sufficient to establish great bodily harm
• interpreting statute similar to Georgia’s aggravated battery statute, court held that “the loss of a tooth is a permanent loss of the function of a bodily member”
• finding factual basis for guilty plea where victim lost a tooth

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Moore
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2005-07-14· cited 56×
• State v. Garcia
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2012-08-17· cited 51×
• State v. Bogenreif
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1991-01-30· cited 34×
• McBeath v. State
  Court of Appeals of Mississippi· 1999-04-20· cited 18×
• State v. Yamashiro
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 1991-08-14· cited 13×
• State v. Currie
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1987-02-10· cited 13×
• State v. Walsh
  Montana Supreme Court· 1997-01-10· cited 6×
• Rivers v. State
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 2002-05-17· cited 6×
• State v. Barner
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1993-12-27· cited 5×
• State v. Hysell
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1990-01-02· cited 4×
• State v. Harlin
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2009-08-25· cited 4×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. DiFrancesco
  Supreme Court· 1980-12-09· cited 1,657×
• State v. Stafford
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1983-12-02· cited 15×
• State v. Benson
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1983-03-18· cited 9×