Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 729 N.W.2d 1.

28 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Terry Izeal Heggs Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Nathan Alexander Jefferson v. Drew Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Nathan Alexander Jefferson v. Drew Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Though the means 5 to argue that the registration statute is punitive.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Thompson 929 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Thompson 929 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Nevada v. Hicks , 533 U.S. 353 , 365, 121 S. Ct. 2304 , 2313, 150 L.Ed.2d 398 (2001) ; In re Civil Commitment of Johnson , , 139 (Minn. 2011) ; State v. Jones , , 4-5 (Minn. 2007) ; State v. Stone , , 728 (Minn. 1997).
State v. LaFountain 901 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. LaFountain 901 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
LaFountain argues, however, that these prior interpretations of predatory-offender-registration statutes have been superseded by the Minnesota Supreme Court’s
State of Minnesota v. Tressa Lee Bissonette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tressa Lee Bissonette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
§ 1360(a) (2012) (providing Minnesota with limited jurisdiction “over civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties” which arise in “Indian Country within the State, except the Red Lake 4 Reservation”); (“Minnesota has broad criminal and limited civil jurisdiction over all ‘Indian country’ within the state, except for the Red Lake Reservation and the Bois Forte Reservation at Nett Lake.”).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Civil Commitment of Johnson 800 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
In re the Civil Commitment of Johnson 800 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
Federal law governs the State’s “authority to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Indians.”
In Re the Civil Commitment of Johnson 782 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Civil Commitment of Johnson 782 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Roy 761 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Roy 761 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(Anderson, G.Barry, J., concurring) (citing Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 215 , 107 S.Ct.
State v. Losh 755 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2008
State v. Losh 755 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2008
Id.; (applying the four, nonexclusive factors identified in Stone in the second step of the Cabazon analysis to help determine whether a stat *741 ute was criminal/prohibitory or civil/regulatory); -6 (Minn.2007) (plurality opinion) (finding that Cabazon’s “shorthand public policy test” may be used to help determine if particular conduct is criminal/prohibitory or eivil/regulatory and that the four, nonexclusive factors identified in Stone can be utilized to help determine whether an activity is
Morgan v. 2000 Volkswagen, License No. 279, Vin 3VWRA29M2YM125643 754 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Morgan v. 2000 Volkswagen, License No. 279, Vin 3VWRA29M2YM125643 754 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Longoria v. State 749 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Longoria v. State 749 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
The prohibited conduct is that of an “identified predatory offender residing or moving without maintaining a current address registration with the proper authorities.” (emphasis added).
State v. Losh 739 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Losh 739 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Public Law 280 expressly grants Minnesota “broad criminal and limited civil jurisdiction over all Indian country within the state, except for the Red Lake Reservation.” (quotation omitted); 18 U.S.C.
In Re the Civil Commitment of Beaulieu 737 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Civil Commitment of Beaulieu 737 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Id.; (stating that “[u]nder Public Law 280, Minnesota has broad criminal and limited civil jurisdiction over all ‘Indian country’ within the state, except for the Red Lake Reservation ...