State v. Kramer

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “[t]here is no separate offense of ‘aiding and abetting’ . . . because it is not a substantive offense”
• upholding a conviction— even though the state did not prove that the defendant himself made the misrepresentation—because he was responsible for the misrepresentation as an “insider involved in basic business decisions” at the company that made the misrepresentations
• “A judge’s prior adverse ruling in a case is not sufficient to show prejudice which would disqualify the judge.”
• “A judge’s prior adverse ruling in a case is not sufficient to show prejudice which would disqualify the judge.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Flicek
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2003-03-04· cited 13×
• State v. Bluhm
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1990-08-22· cited 6×
• State v. Beard
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1998-02-03· cited 2×

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Ulvinen
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1981-12-17· cited 133×
• United States v. Carl R. Anderson
  Eighth Circuit· 1970-11-04· cited 65×
• State v. Strimling
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1978-03-10· cited 52×
• Gerdes v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1982-05-28· cited 30×
• State v. Smith
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1988-04-01· cited 29×
• Marriage of Olson v. Olson
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1986-08-19· cited 19×
• State v. Ruffin
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1968-04-11· cited 18×
• State v. Lone
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1985-02-08· cited 14×
• State v. Hanson
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1979-11-02· cited 14×
• State v. Britt
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1968-02-09· cited 12×
• State v. Manley
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1984-08-21· cited 9×
• State v. Ulvestad
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1987-11-03· cited 3×