DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

  • Opinions
  • Judges
  • Tags
  • About
  • Privacy

Explore

  • preponderance of the evidence
  • evidentiary hearing
  • controlled substance
  • implied consent
  • Fourth Amendment
  • habeas corpus
  • ineffective assistance
  • Miranda
  • Fifth Amendment
  • search and seizure
  • termination of parental rights
  • post-conviction relief
  • sentencing departure
  • civil contempt
  • harassment restraining order
  • spoliation

Outcomes

  • Affirmed
  • Reversed
  • Vacated
  • Remanded
  • Mixed
  • Modified
  • Dismissed
  • Granted
  • Denied
Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted
  1. DocketDrift
  2. Minnesota

Minnesota Appellate Opinions

Published opinions of the Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, collated from public records. 4 opinions matched.

Filtering by: Reversed “harassment restraining order” Last 10 yrs · since 2016 Expand to full archive (1930–) Clear ×
Docket Court Filed Disposition Case
a220079 Minn. Ct. App. 2024-01-29 Reversed State of Minnesota v. Toni Elizabeth Ickler
… pellant violated a harassment restraining order because the temporary ex parte harassment restraining order that was served on appellant was not in effect nine days after the hearing on the harassment petition and because the state did n …
a230780 Minn. Ct. App. 2024-01-16 Reversed Allison Marie Wolf v. John Roman Schmainda
A16-1304 Minn. Ct. App. 2017-01-23 Reversed Samantha Raye Meyer v. Robert J. Harley
… ODENBERG, Judge Appellant challenges the district court’s issuance of a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that (1) the district court made insufficient factual findings, (2) reasonable grounds do not exist to support the …
A16-1211 Minn. Ct. App. 2017-01-17 Reversed and remanded Amanda Stokes-Ciochetto, Paul Brian Ciochetto and o/b/o Minor Children v. Devin James Esk…
… family. Eskeli argues on appeal that (1) the district court erred by issuing a harassment restraining order based on a single incident of harassment; (2) the family failed to show the substantial adverse effect on respondent-daughter A.S …