State v. Soukup

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 defendant was not entitled to a new trial, in part, because the expert’s testimony was a small part of the state’s evidence
• concluding that a defendant was not entitled to a new trial, in part, because the expert’s testimony was only a small part of the state’s evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Idaho v. Wright
  Supreme Court· 1990-06-27· cited 2,081×
• State v. Tate
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2004-06-29· cited 18×
• State v. Whiteside
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1987-02-03· cited 17×
• State v. Jurgens
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1988-05-03· cited 8×
• State v. Anderson
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1986-03-14· cited 4×
• State v. Hall
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1986-10-17· cited 3×
• State v. Skjefte
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1988-07-19· cited 2×
• State v. Williams
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1990-02-27· cited 2×
• Scott v. Johnson
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1985-12-24

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Myers
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1984-12-21· cited 253×
• Di Carlo v. United States
  Second Circuit· 1925-03-09· cited 246×
• State v. Saldana
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1982-08-31· cited 204×
• State v. Helterbridle
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1980-10-31· cited 88×
• State v. Ortlepp
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1985-02-15· cited 51×
• People v. Izzo
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 1979-06-19· cited 33×