Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roer v. Dunham, 682 N.W.2d 179.

25 citing documents.

City of Blaine Police Department v. John Mark Luedtke Minn. Ct. App. 2026
7 7 to support his argument, but that case is inapposite here.
Allison Marie Wolf v. John Roman Schmainda Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Allison Marie Wolf v. John Roman Schmainda Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“Because the district court identified only one incident of harassment, the findings are insufficient to support the restraining order.”).
Rebecca Lynn Fideldy v. Rose Marie Schumacher Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1(a)(1) (202 2); see also Roer v. Dunham , (explaining that district court needs to identify more than one incident to support finding of harassment).
Tyler Grant Thompson v. Arlen Britton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“[T]his court cannot add language that is not present in the statute or supply what the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
Kristen M. Egan v. Victor Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Amanda Marie Van Ryswyk v. Joshua Thomas Van Ryswyk, and Joshua Thomas Van Ryswyk, vs. Amanda Marie Van … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Emily Mae Peterson v. Scott Howard Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Catherine Marie Schaefer v. Brock William Fredin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district court “may not extend a restraining order beyond two years from the effective date of the initial restraining order.”
Staples-Motley School District (A19-0466), Paul David Anderson (A19-0468) v. Dave Johnson, a/k/a David Kenneth Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1(a)(1); (“Because the district court identified only one incident of ha rassment, the findings are insufficient to support [an 7 HRO.]”).
Jenna Marie Bjerke v. Dan Naweto Flomo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tara Ann Nesmoe-Thompson v. Neil V. Lindemann, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Roer v. Dunham , (holding that, because the HRO statute li mits the length of restraining orders to two years, a motion to extend such an order beyond two years may be considered only as a petition for a new HRO).
Dean Murray v. Casondra Schaffer, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
1(a); (“Because the district court iden tified only one incident of harassment, the findings are insufficient to support the restraining order.”); d 502, 503 (Minn. App. 2002) (fi nding that a district court a bused its discretion in granting an HRO “based on a single i
Sharper Management, LLC, et al v. Melvin Pittel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sharper Management, LLC, et al v. Melvin Pittel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Cathie J. Pascavage v. Donald Mackay Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Cathie J. Pascavage v. Donald Mackay Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Peterson v. Johnson 755 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Peterson v. Johnson 755 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Semler v. Klang 743 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Semler v. Klang 743 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
§ 541.06 does not mention “police officer,” and “this court cannot add language that is not present in the statute or supply what the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”
In Re the Welfare of the Child of L.M.L. 730 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of the Child of L.M.L. 730 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
§ 645.49 (2006) (“The head-notes printed in boldface type before sections and subdivisions in editions of Minnesota Statutes are mere catchwords to indicate the contents of the section or subdivision and are not part of the statute.”); (stating that courts cannot add language that is not present in statute or supply what legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks); Hyland v. Metro.
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006