Cited by

1(a)(1) ( 2024) (emphasis added); see also Dunham v. Roer , (stating that harassment requires “ repeated intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

There must be “an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

First, Davis’s free-speech argument is inconsistent with this court’s rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

We have held that regulation of conduct constituting “harassment” under Minnesota Statutes section 609.748 is not unconstitutional because the statute “only regulates speech or conduct that constitutes ‘fighting words,’ ‘true threats,’ or substantial invasions of one’s privacy.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

–67 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

The HRO statute “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

Harassment under section 609.748 “does not depend entirely on whether the ‘target’ suffers adverse effects.” Dunham v. Roer , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

The HRO statute “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

–67 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

6 rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

See id.; (listing 17 requirements for appellant to demonstrate a malicious-prosecution claim), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

This definition requires “both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the 6 part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

This definition requires “both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person being harassed.”

4 This definition requires “both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

(noting that the HRO statute requires “objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser,” and “an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

A determination of harassment under section 609.748 “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to the harassing conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

Harassment “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” Dunham v. Roer , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

568 (Minn. App. 2006) (noting that a proceeding to obtain an HRO “is civil in nature” and upholding the constitutionality of the HRO statute), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

Harassment “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” Dunham v. Roer , , 567 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. 9 denied (Minn. Mar.

This definition requires “both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

748 “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to the harassing conduct.” Dunham v. Roer , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

The relationship history may provide context for a district court when deciding whether the harasser’s conduct was “objectively unreasonable” and whether the allegations from the person allegedly being harassed constitute an “objectively reasonable belief.” (detailing statutorily required considerations that district courts must use when deciding whether to grant a HRO petition).

Such harassing conduct “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

-67 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

1(a)(1) (2022).3 This definition “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” Dunham v. Roer , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

istrict court granted Houde’s civil HRO petition against Fryxell under section 609.748, and this court has held that conduct constituting harassment under section 609.748 does not violate the First Amendment because “the state may regulate certain categories of words or conduct without substantially infringing on speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

In order to issue an HRO, a district court must “find that there are reasonable, rather than merely subjective, grounds to believe that the accused engaged in harassment.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

“[S]ection 609.748 requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

1(a)(1); d 552, 567 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

Moreover, “the state 9 may regulate certain categories of words or conduct without substantially infringing on speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.” Dunham v. Roer , ; rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

A harassment determination “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

The harassment statute requires the petitioner to establish: (1) “objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser” and (2) “an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct .” Peterson, d at 764 (quoting Dunham v. Roer , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

Thus, the HRO statute “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

Instead, “[t]o present a genuine issue of material fact, affidavits must be based on personal knowledge and set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence.” , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

In Dunham v. Roer, this court observed that a finding of harassment “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively 6 reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” -67 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

A determination of harassment under section 609.748 “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” Dunham v. Roer, 6 rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

Thus, a determination of harassment under section 609.748 “requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

“Ordinarily, laws are afforded a presumption of constitutionality, but statutes allegedly restricting First Amendment rights are not so presum ed.” Dunham v. Roer

“[S]ection 609.748 requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objecti vely reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.