Cited by

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

158 citing documents.

Amanda Stokes-Ciochetto, Paul Brian Ciochetto and o/b/o Minor Children v. Devin James Eskeli Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The district court must determine whether (1) Eskeli engaged in repeated unwanted conduct that (2) had a “substantial adverse effect” on the family members’ “safety, security or privacy.” Id.; review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Kim Marie Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kim Marie Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 552, 567 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Steven R. Saba v. City of Fridley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Peter Richard Rickmyer v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
( (stating that the harassment-restraining-order statute regulates only fighting words, true threats, or substantial invasions of one’s privacy because it requires both repeated unwelcome acts and “a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another”), review denied (Mi
Peter Richard Rickmyer v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Darcie Gilliard and on behalf of minor children v. Jacob Alton Leatherman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Darcie Gilliard and on behalf of minor children v. Jacob Alton Leatherman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Susan Esther Safstrom v. Justina Elise Morin, and Justina Elise Morin obo minor children v. Susan Esther Safstrom Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Susan Esther Safstrom v. Justina Elise Morin, and Justina Elise Morin obo minor children v. Susan Esther Safstrom Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that 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”), 5 review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Angela Swenson v. Shawn Anthony Pedri, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Angela Swenson v. Shawn Anthony Pedri, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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.
Nathan Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sharper Management, LLC v. Melvin Pittel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nathan Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Sharper Management, LLC v. Melvin Pittel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Lucas Heikkila, individually and o/b/o Minor Children v. Jeff Dietman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lucas Heikkila, individually and o/b/o Minor Children v. Jeff Dietman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Colleen Marie Berg v. Michael Vincent Flaherty Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Colleen Marie Berg v. Michael Vincent Flaherty Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
Joyce Sammon v. Kim Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joyce Sammon v. Kim Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
4 “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.
Sarah Elizabeth LeBlanc v. Alonzo Marell Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sarah Elizabeth LeBlanc v. Alonzo Marell Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
and, second, ‘an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.’” Peterson, d at 764 ( review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(recognizing exception to general standing requirements for facial First Amendment challenges), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Christopher Eugene Engelmann v. Ann Christos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christopher Eugene Engelmann v. Ann Christos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Vickie Williams and o/b/o M. W. v. Phillip A. Rimmer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Vickie Williams and o/b/o M. W. v. Phillip A. Rimmer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
testified that Rimmer 5 said “he’d take us to court and wipe our a-- across the floor.” Rimmer admits that he made the statement, but he argues that the harassment statute requires proof of “objectively unreasonable conduct or intent” on his part and “an objectively reasonable belief on the part of [Williams and M.W.].” (requiring such proof and noting that there must be “reasonable, rather than merely subjective, grounds to believe” harassment has occurred), review denied (Minn. Mar.
OSK III, LLC v. HLI, LLC, Timothy J. Lambrecht Minn. Ct. App. 2015
OSK III, LLC v. HLI, LLC, Timothy J. Lambrecht Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Scott H. Lansing, John Doe and Mary Rowe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Scott H. Lansing, John Doe and Mary Rowe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Westbrooke Condominium Association d/b/a Meadow Creek Condominiums v. Melvin Pittel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Westbrooke Condominium Association d/b/a Meadow Creek Condominiums v. Melvin Pittel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
William J. Cavanagh v. Allen R. Arvig, Chris Mensing, individually and d/b/a Lakes Country Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
William J. Cavanagh v. Allen R. Arvig, Chris Mensing, individually and d/b/a Lakes Country Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The question is “whether the process was used to accomplish an unlawful end for which it was not designed or intended, or to compel a party to do a collateral act which he is not legally required to do.” (quotation omitted).
Michelle Kirchner v. Patricia Jernell, Turpen Realty Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michelle Kirchner v. Patricia Jernell, Turpen Realty Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Phipps 820 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Phipps 820 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“Vague penal statutes are prohibited as a violation of due process.”
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“[0]ur society, like other free but civilized societies, has permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, which are ‘of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.’ ” (quoting R.A.V.
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(citing Gormley v. Dir., Conn. State Dep’t. of Prob., 632 F.2d 938 (2nd Cir.1980)).