Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dunham v. Roer, 708 N.W.2d 552.

158 citing documents.

Megan Marie Johnson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[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 th e person subject to harassing conduct.” 67 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Elizabeth Annette Robyn Wolter, OBO A. R. W., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-67 (Minn. App. 2006); see Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd.
State of MN ex rel. Kandiyohi County Family Services, Plaintiff, o/b/o Kristi A. Barber, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In determining whether good cause exists, due regard shall be given to the ability of the party requesting a continuance to e ffectively proceed without a c ontinuance.” The decision to grant or deny a continuance is “within the sound discretion of the district court, and its decision will not be reversed unless it has abused its discretion.” Dunham v. Roer , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Mower County Health and Human Services, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Joel Leslie Wells, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Emily Mae Peterson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Mitchell Wilfred Suess, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
’” Peterson, d at 764 (emphasis added) 5 ( review denied (Minn. Mar.
Wayne Floyd O’Connor, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Concluding that this second, non-assaultive form of harassment has occurred “requires a court to find that there are reasonable, rather than merely subjective, grounds to believe that the accused engaged in harassment.” Dunham v. Roer , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Lindsey Middlecamp, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-67 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Mar.
A20-0958 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
28, 2006); see also, (recognizing that HRO proceedings are civil in nature); -44 (Minn. App. 2004) (applying the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure to an HRO proceeding) , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Wat Lao Sirithammaram, Inc., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Dunham v. Roer , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Sandra May Schumann, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“[S]ection 609.748 requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or inte nt on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.”).
Derik John Grittner, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[T]he harassment statute is ‘quasi-criminal’ and is subject to the heightened definiteness requirement.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
Jay Thomas Nygard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[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.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
Annikki Lee Hockert, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[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.” Dunham v. Roer , review denied (Minn. Mar.
John Patrick Becker, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Caleb Samuel Pesola, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[S]ection 609.748 requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on th e part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
Katherine Corrine McClain, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Dunham v. Roer , (upholding the constitutionality of the HRO statute because subdivision 5(3) limits application to objectively unreasonable conduct) , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
9 review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Ordinarily, laws are afforded a presumption of constitutionality, but statutes allegedly restricting First Amendment rights are not so presumed.” Dunham v. Roer , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Linde Sayen, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An order is not unconstitutionally vague when a reasonable person could not “inadvertently violate the [order] because of an inability to determine what type of conduct is prohibited.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
Jason Wallace Horsman, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
9 arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
David Rucki, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
ch: (1) “fighting words,” which are “likely to cause the average addressee to fight or protect one’s own safety, security, or privacy”; (2) “true threats,” which evidence “an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against one’s safety, security or privacy”; and (3) “speech or conduct that is intended to have a substantial adverse effect, i.e., is in violation of one’s right to privacy.” -66 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Emily Peterson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1(a)(1) (201 4), is “to prohibit repeated and unwanted acts, words, or g estures that have or are intended to 7 have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security or privacy of another.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
Jason McKenzie, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dunham v. Roer , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Rebecca Anderson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Tara Ann Nesmoe-Thompson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Caselaw has clarified that, to constitute harassment, the respondent’s conduct or intent must be “objectively unreasonable” and the pe titioner’s belief that the conduct was substantially adverse to the petitioner’s safety, s ecurity, or privacy must be “objectively reasonable.” Dunham v. Roer , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Generations Law Office, Ltd., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The essential elements for a cause of action for abuse of process are the existence of an ulterior purpose and the act of using the process to accomplish a result not within the scope of the proceedings in which it wa s issued, whether such result might otherwise be lawfully obtained or not.” Dunham v. Roer , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Tracy Leigh Thompson o/b/o D. X. T., petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Randall Tague and obo Minor, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Olson v. JT6HF10u6X0079461 910 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Olson v. JT6HF10u6X0079461 910 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Dunham v. Roer , , 563 n.2 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Erik Anderson, et al., petitioners, Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
To constit ute harassment, the 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.” Dunham v. Roer , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Pakou Lee-Barrios and o/b/o Minor Child, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Joseph Charles Adler, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 552, 567 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Linert v. MacDonald 901 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Linert v. MacDonald 901 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A statute is overbroad on its face if it prohibits constitutionally protected activity, in addition to activity that may be prohibited without offending constitutional rights.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
A16-2062 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Dunham v. Roer , -67 (Minn. App. 2006).
Sarah Yule, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Sarah B. Janecek, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 552, 565 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. March 28, 2006).
Paula Polinsky, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Lori Elaine Coleal, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Absent a clear abuse of discretion, the district court’s decision regarding discovery will not be disturbed.” (citation and quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Troy Kenneth Scheffler, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
To obtain a HRO, the petitioner must prove: (1) “objectively unreasonable conduct or int ent on the part of the harasser, ” and ( 2) “an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
Kristin M. Schumacher, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 552, 569 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Gemma Watson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Christine Diane Eyal, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Absent a clear abuse of discretion, the district court’s decision regarding discovery will not be disturbed.” (citation and quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Samantha Raye Meyer v. Robert J. Harley Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Samantha Raye Meyer v. Robert J. Harley Minn. Ct. App. 2017
To obtain an HRO, the petitioner must prove: (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” of a “substantial adverse effect on [the person’s] safety, security, or privacy.” d 552, 567 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Amanda Stokes-Ciochetto, Paul Brian Ciochetto and o/b/o Minor Children v. Devin James Eskeli Minn. Ct. App. 2017