State v. Stout

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the value of stolen goods may be determined based on “direct and circumstantial evidence bearing on the value of the item in the retail market”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Garza
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1992-08-14· cited 94×
• State v. Dulski
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1985-03-01· cited 39×
• State v. Phillips
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1981-03-03· cited 18×
• Herme v. State
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1986-03-25· cited 12×
• State v. Bonafide
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1990-06-05· cited 6×
• Finnegan v. State
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2009-05-05· cited 5×
• State v. Belfry
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1984-08-21· cited 5×
• State v. Contreras
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 1996-01-11· cited 4×
• State v. Ulvestad
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1987-11-03· cited 3×
• State v. Dulski
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1984-11-27· cited 3×
• State v. Delcastillo
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1987-09-08· cited 1×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Taylor v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1973-11-05· cited 580×
• People v. Tijerina
  California Supreme Court· 1969-10-24· cited 92×
• People v. Irrizari
  New York Court of Appeals· 1959-01-08· cited 85×
• State v. McDonald
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1977-03-11· cited 64×
• Husten v. United States
  Eighth Circuit· 1938-02-24· cited 42×
• The People v. Fognini
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1940-06-14· cited 21×