Cited by

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

161 citing documents.

Heidi Lee Wolf v. Bradley Athmann Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.
Johnsonville, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company v. City of Buffalo, a Minnesota municipal corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Ordinarily, laws are afforded a presumption of constitutionality, but statutes allegedly restricting First Amendment rights are not so presum ed.” Dunham v. Roer
Katherine Dillard Rice Hayes v. Augustus Conrade Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[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.
Megan Marie Johnson v. Richard Preston Blackwell 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 v. Nicholas John Wolter Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-67 (Minn. App. 2006); see Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd.
State of MN ex rel. Kandiyohi County Family Services, o/b/o Kristi A. Barber v. Nathan W. Koering 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, April Ann Rowe v. Michael Paul Osborn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Joel Leslie Wells v. Jeffrey Fischbach Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Emily Mae Peterson v. Scott Howard Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Mitchell Wilfred Suess v. Wesley W. Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2021
’” Peterson, d at 764 (emphasis added) 5 ( review denied (Minn. Mar.
Wayne Floyd O’Connor v. Byron Thomas O’Connor 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 v. Brock William Fredin Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-67 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Matthew James Beland v. Heidi Hamre-Rylander (A20-0957), Kurtis Rylander (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 v. Mark Vinath Saythong, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Dunham v. Roer , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Sandra May Schumann v. Dana Scott Wiberg 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 v. Mark Steven Buhr 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 v. Patrick Walsh 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 v. Andrew John Towle 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 v. Pablo Murillo Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Caleb Samuel Pesola v. Joel Patrick Jahraus 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 v. Troy Dennis Midas 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 v. Charlene Marie Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
9 review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Casillas 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 v. Michael Sayen 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 v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
9 arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
David Rucki, et al v. Deirdre Elise Evavold 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 v. Scott Howard Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Roy Paul Sanborn 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 v. Aaron Louis Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dunham v. Roer , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Rebecca Anderson v. Benjamin Busse Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Tara Ann Nesmoe-Thompson v. Neil V. Lindemann, et al 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. v. Lonny D. Thomas, Mark A. Severson, et al., and Thomas Law, P.A., et … 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 v. David Winfred Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Randall Tague and obo Minor v. Bernard Menge 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 v. David Robert Weber 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 v. Eric Joseph Vacko Below, Brittany Ann Vacko Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Joseph Charles Adler v. Jennifer Lynn Adler 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.
Sarah Yule v. Jan Kehlenbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Tami Juberian obo Minor Children (A16-2061), Tami Juberian (A16-2062) v. Nancy Hail Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Dunham v. Roer , -67 (Minn. App. 2006).
Sarah B. Janecek v. Lee Aaron Rosenthal Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 552, 565 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. March 28, 2006).
Paula Polinsky v. Charles M. Bolton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Lori Elaine Coleal v. David Michael Coleal 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 v. Mark Joseph McDonough 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, Marian V. Swanson, intervenor v. Terrence K. Swanson, and Terrence K. Swanson, counterclaimant, vs. Kristin … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 552, 569 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Gemma Watson v. Jeremiah Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Christine Diane Eyal v. Ephraim Eyal 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.