State ex rel. Nordstrom v. Superintendent of Workhouse of Minneapolis
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 1950, 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Shaw v. Utecht (Minn. 1950)
- In re Speer (Idaho 1933)
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
Defendant was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and in default thereof to be confined in the workhouse for a term not to exceed one year. On appeal, the trial court was in all things affirmed, except that this court held the sentence excessive in that the imprisonment in case of nonpayment of the fine could not exceed six months. In disposing of the ease the court said: "The judgment and sentence should be modified accordingly. Subject to this modification the judgment is affirmed.” It appears that the trial court thereupon discharged the relator on a writ of habeas corpus and then sentenced him to pay .a fine of $200, and in default of payment to be confined in the workhouse not exceeding two and one-half months. Defendant, contending that the sentence was void, sued out a writ of habeas corpus.
It was our intention by the order disposing of the appeal to affirm the conviction and the sentence, subject to the modification indicated, and to remand the case for such modification. The subsequent action of the trial court did not conform technically to this procedure, but the difference was of form rather than of substance. The second sentence was not void and only technically irregular.
Defendant contends that some of the evidence produced against defendant on the trial was procured by search of defendant’s premises without a warrant, and that such evidence should not have been received on the trial. If defendant had any such objection the time to make it was on the trial, and the time to review it was on appeal from the judgment of conviction. The reception of inadmissible evidence does not render a judgment subject to collateral attack in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.