Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Romine, 757 N.W.2d 884.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[Appellate courts] review the evidentiary rulings of the district court for an abuse of discretion, even when it is claimed that the exclusion of evidence deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to present a complete defense.” d 114, 123 (Minn. 2024) (quotation omitted); (“We review a district court’s rulings regarding the scope of arguments for abuse of discretion.”), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
City of Blaine Police Department, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“As a general rule, a party’s failure to appeal the issuance of a court order precludes a collateral attack on that order in a subsequent proceeding.” -90 (Minn. App. 2008), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Marriage of: Elizabeth Doree Hanson v. Todd David Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Marriage of: Elizabeth Doree Hanson v. Todd David Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(concluding that any error in receipt of the victim impact statement was not reversible because it apparently “had little to no impact on the district court’s sentence”), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[T]hat right is not absolute,” but it includes the right for counsel “to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B. D. D. and D. A. A., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B. D. D. and D. A. A., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-90 (Minn. App. 2008) (“As a general rule, a party’s failure to appeal the issuance of a court order precludes a collateral attack on that order in a subsequent proceeding.”), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of: Tammy Alberts v. Joseph Alberts Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of: Tammy Alberts v. Joseph Alberts Minn. Ct. App. 2024
4 He provided only a partial transcript of the hearing upon which (holding that an OFP “is a final judgment” after expiration of the appeal period and “may not .
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of: Heidi Sue Heller, obo minor children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Likewise, the district court has discretion in managing courtroom procedure, rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Roy Vincent Aguirre. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-90 (Minn. App. 2008) (declining to review the constitutionality of an order for protection, stating, “a party’s failure to appeal 3 Edwards initially argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the charged offense because the HRO statute did not authorize a geographical restriction
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“As a general rule, a party’s failure to appeal the issuance of a court order precludes a collateral attack on that order in a subsequent proceeding.” -90 (Minn. App. 2008), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
–90 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied, (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“As a general rule, a party’s failure to appeal the issuance of a court order precludes a collateral attack on that order in a subsequent proceeding.” d 884, 889-90 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Lindsey Middlecamp, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Romine , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A defendant’s disagreement with the underlying order is not an element or defense.1 (rejecting a collateral attack to validity of an OFP), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
–90 (Minn. App. 2008) (citing Harrington as support for a “general rule” that “a party’s failure to appeal the issuance of a court order precludes a collateral attack on that order in a subsequent proceeding”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Nicholas 924 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Nicholas 924 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Romine , , 889-90 (Minn. App. 2008) ("As a general rule, a party's failure to appeal the issuance of a court order precludes a collateral attack on that order in a subsequent proceeding."), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An “omission in a complaint is not reversible error if the defendant understood the charges and did not request a substitute complaint.” State v. Romine , n.1 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Feb.
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“As a general rule, a party’s failure to appeal the issuance of a court order precludes a collateral attack on that order in a subsequent proceeding.” -90 (Minn. App. 11 2008) (concluding that a defendant who did not challenge the issuance of an OFP could not collaterally attack its validity in an appeal from the final judgment of conviction for violating it), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Joel Thomas Samuelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joel Thomas Samuelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Similarly, review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-90 (Minn. App. 2008) (concluding that a party’s failure to successfully challenge a court order precludes collateral attack on that order in a subsequent proceeding), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Steven Tyrone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Tyrone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–90 (Minn. App. 2008) (concluding that appellant’s failure to appeal issuance of OFP precluded collateral attack on OFP’s validity on appeal of conviction of violation of an OFP), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehrallian Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehrallian Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-23 (Minn. App. 2012), aff’d, review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Phipps 820 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Phipps 820 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-91 (Minn.App.2008), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“As a general rule, a party’s failure to appeal the issuance of a court order precludes a collateral attack on that order in a subsequent proceeding.” -90 (Minn.App.2008); -03 (Minn.App.1993) (holding that a defendant who failed to appeal a harassment restraining order in the case in which it was issued could not challenge the constitutionality of that order in a subsequent criminal prosecution for violating it)
State v. Caldwell 815 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Caldwell 815 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2012