Legal Opinion

State v. Omodt

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 23, 1936No. 30,939PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Julius J. Olson, Justice.

Defendant was convicted of forgery in the third degree as defined in 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 10327(1), which reads:

“Every person who—
“1. Being an officer or in the employment of a corporation, association, partnership, or individual, shall falsify, or unlawfully and corruptly, alter, erase, obliterate, or destroy any accounts, book of accounts, records or other writing belonging or appertaining to the business of the corporation, association, partnership, or individual;

•X- * *x*

“Shall be guilty of forgery in the third degree.”

Being unsuccessful on his motion for new…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. BakerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  2. State v. ComfortSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
  3. American Bridge Co. v. HonstainSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
  4. State v. BourneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
  5. State v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. BolsingerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
  2. State v. MeanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  3. State v. PehrsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
  4. State v. GoldenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
  5. State v. TsiolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API