Legal Opinion
State v. Ali
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 11, 2000No. C2-00-70PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KALITOWSKI, Judge
The district court certified a question to this court asking whether, to support a controlled substance charge for the possession of cathinone under Minn.Stat. § 152.02, subd. 2(6) (1998), the state must prove that the cathinone is present in a quantity “having a stimulant effect.”
FACTS
This case involves felony charges against six defendants: Abshir Mohamed Ahmed, Mohamed Galony Ali, Abdi Mohamed As-kar, Arie Musse Jama, Mohamud Muse Jama, and Ahmed Abdi Mursal. Each defendant was charged with one count of fifth-degree possession of khat, a plant containing the…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- State v. MurphySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Commonwealth v. DriscollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Commonwealth v. TeadaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- United States v. Bonnie Ann Durham, United States of America v. Jerome Sherman StanleyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- State v. CollinsworthIdaho Supreme Court · 1975
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. Daahir CaseerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- State v. SamatarOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
- Commonwealth v. MohamudSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- State v. AliCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
- State v. AhmedCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.