Legal Opinion
State v. Thonesavanh
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided September 6, 2017No. A15-1716PublishedCited by 97 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STRAS, Justice.
OPINION
The question presented in this case is whether an individual may commit motor-vehicle theft without moving the vehicle. The district court dismissed the motor-vehicle-theft charge against respondent Somsalao Thonesavanh for lack of proba*434ble cause, concluding that the word “takes” in Minn. Stat, § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(17) (2016), required Thonesavanh to move the vehicle, something that' indisputably did not occur in this casé. The court of appeals affirmed. Because we conclude- that an individual does not need to move a- vehicle to “take” it, we reverse the decision of the…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. WiltbergerSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
- Marx v. General Revenue Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
- United States v. SantosSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Callanan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by97 opinions
- State v. PakhnyukSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
- Depositors Ins. Co. v. DollanskySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Comm'r RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
- Pitman Farms v. Kuehl Poultry, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2022
- In re RestorffSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
92 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.