State v. Sauer
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Magney, Justice.
Defendant was convicted of the crime of keeping á disorderly resort. Through substituted attorneys he appeals from an order denying him a new trial.
Defendant admits that the facts as disclosed by the evidence support the verdict. He claims that he is entitled to a new trial because of alleged errors committed at the trial.
Defendant operates a hotel in the city of Brainerd. In the early morning of March 20, 1943, three police officers entered the hotel searching for a missing girl. While going through the building they discovered facts which later led to the arrest of…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- State v. PluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- State v. StoffelsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- State v. HesseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Keith v. AlbrechtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. MontalvoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- City of St. Paul v. StovallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- United States v. SmithUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1963
- State v. DemrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
- State v. MitjansCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.