Minnesota Supreme Court, 1916

State v. Thorvildson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 8, 1916

135 Minn. 98; 160 N.W. 247; 1916 Minn. LEXIS 509 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

E. A. Bronson and W. J. Rasmussen, for appellant., Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General, James E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, and G. A. Youngquist, County Attorney, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2016, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
Hallen v. Montgomery Ward Co. Inc. (Minn. 1938)
State v. Nickolay (Minn. 1931)
State v. Boylan (Minn. 1924)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The appeal is from an order denying a new trial after a verdict finding appellant guilty of selling intoxicating liquors contrary to law. The assignments of error challenge only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. There were only two witnesses produced concerning the sale. The prosecuting witness, a private detective employed by the county attorney, and defendant. Assuming both to be interested witnesses, it was nevertheless for the jury to determine who was telling the *99truth. That a witness is a detective and has been employed by the state to ascertain whether the liquor laws have been violated, does not justify the court in holding as a matter of law that his testimony is not worthy of credence. Some other points made in the brief, but not based on any assignment of error, need not be mentioned, for they are without merit.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.