State v. Klaustermeier
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 1938, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- State v. Hanke (Minn. 1938)
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 appealed from an order denying his motion for judgment non obstante or a new trial.
Defendant was convicted of being the father of an illegitimate child. He now attacks the sufficiency of the evidence. No useful purpose can be served by a discussion of the evidence. The effort to bring this case within the application of State v. McCullough, 102 Minn. 419, 113 N. W. 1059, and State v. Ahrens, supra, p. 294, is futile. In this case facts constituting an opportunity are present. If the girl’s testimony is true defendant is guilty. If his story is true he is innocent. Each can point to some circumstances which corroborate his claim, and tend to discredit the claim of the other. It is just an ordinary case of fact with plenty of evidence to sustain a finding either way. ,
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.