State v. Pinkerton

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “an agreement solely between a seller and a buyer of controlled substances cannot constitute a conspiracy”
• holding agreement between defendant seller and informant buyer to sell controlled substances to informant does not constitute conspiracy under Minnesota law
• “[I]t is the function of a jury to weigh the credibility of witnesses.”
• “[T]he legislature would not intend that a seller and a buyer of controlled substances could be subject to the same penalty,” as would be the case “[i]f an agreement solely between a seller and a buyer of controlled substances can constitute conspiracy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Brown
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2007-06-07· cited 41×
• State v. Vereb
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2002-05-07· cited 15×
• People v. Lucero
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2016-07-14· cited 9×
• Commonwealth v. Doty
  Massachusetts Appeals Court· 2015-09-03· cited 3×
• State v. Vang
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2005-07-12· cited 1×
• State v. Allan
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2014-01-28

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Roby v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1996-04-26· cited 235×
• State v. Kuhnau
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2001-03-01· cited 128×
• State v. Harris
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1999-01-07· cited 76×
• United States v. Hershey Moss
  Eighth Circuit· 1979-01-15· cited 74×
• Lolling v. Midwest Patrol
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1996-03-22· cited 35×
• State v. Folkers
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1998-07-09· cited 22×
• State v. Blair
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1987-03-10· cited 12×
• State v. Clow
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1999-08-03· cited 7×