Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson v. Johnson, 755 N.W.2d 758.

139 citing documents.

Heidi Lee Wolf v. Bradley Athmann Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Mary Madonna Schlumpberger and on behalf of minor child v. Renee Anita Vasko Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court may find harassment only if there is 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.” (quotations omitted).
Dane Michael Vandervoort v. Anthony Pietrzak Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Katherine Dillard Rice Hayes v. Augustus Conrade Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Megan Marie Johnson v. Richard Preston Blackwell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Rebecca Sue Nash v. James Allen Piens Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(applying abuse of discretion review to “the issuance of an HRO”).
Elizabeth Annette Robyn Wolter, OBO A. R. W v. Nicholas John Wolter Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Breanna Marie Borth v. Matthew Joseph Borth Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Joseph Lee Selisker v. William Paul Kiley, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kallys Albert Sr. v. Allen Eduardo Diaz Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sarah Anne Trisko, and o/b/o Minor Children v. Karen Mary Hartung Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kadi Beth Jackson, o/b/o Minor Children v. Robert Bradley Daniel Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Joel Leslie Wells v. Jeffrey Fischbach Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Amanda Marie Van Ryswyk v. Joshua Thomas Van Ryswyk, and Joshua Thomas Van Ryswyk, vs. Amanda Marie Van … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1(a)(1); see Peterson v. Johnson , (explaining that t he statute requires proof of objectively unreasonable conduct on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject to the harassment).
Emily Mae Peterson v. Scott Howard Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Molly Elizabeth Joyce v. Randy Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Mitchell Wilfred Suess v. Wesley W. Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Wayne Floyd O’Connor v. Byron Thomas O’Connor Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Ultimately, the issuance of an HRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Peter Richard Rickmyer v. Mimmie Woodall Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5 (2018), and “[s]tatutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo,”
Sandra May Schumann v. Dana Scott Wiberg Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Isaiah Bianco Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(reversing a finding that a report to law enforcement constituted harassment).
Sharon McCrea v. Eric Maurice Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 758, 763 (Minn. App. 2008).
Gail Marie Peterson, and o/b/o minor child v. Preston David Vaughn Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Annikki Lee Hockert v. Andrew John Towle Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Rylan Dakota Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1(a)(1) ; see also Peterson v. Johnson , -62 (Minn. App. 2008) .
John Patrick Becker v. Pablo Murillo Minn. Ct. App. 2020
5(a), (b)(3) (2018); -62 (Minn. App. 2008).
Elsayed M. Elsaid Mahmoud v. Abdi Salad Roble Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Because the statutory definition has two prongs, harassment may be proven in either of two ways.”
Caitlyn Elizabeth Stenerson v. Kevin Michael Stanton Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 758, 761 (Minn. App. 2008).
Jenna Marie Bjerke v. Dan Naweto Flomo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Peterson v. Johnson
Gabrielle Marie Geraci v. Jack Cyril Maxwell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Ultimately, the issuance of an HRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Emily Peterson v. Scott Howard Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jason McKenzie v. Aaron Louis Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
7 “A district court’s authority to issue an HRO is granted by statute.” see Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd.
Ripley Karen Bresson v. Jason James Ourada Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Peterson v. Johnson , Kush v. Mathison , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Heather Marie Romanowicz v. Steven Penttila Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Terence Lakin v. Kevin Michael Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N “Ultimately, the issuance of an HRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Rebecca Anderson v. Benjamin Busse Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N “[T]he issuance of an HRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Carly Jaye Nelson v. Oscar Ivan Garcia Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tara Ann Nesmoe-Thompson v. Neil V. Lindemann, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jacqueline Marie Thibodeaux v. Charles Matthew Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tracy Leigh Thompson o/b/o D. X. T v. David Winfred Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
by choking him, “causing him to turn red and causing him to need medical attention.” To establish “harassment” by proof of a physical assault, “a petitioner must prove that the respond ent intentionally inflicted or attempted to inflict bodily harm.” see Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Mathew Amaro Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Randall Tague and obo Minor v. Bernard Menge Minn. Ct. App. 2018
6 “[T]he issuance of an HRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Dean Murray v. Casondra Schaffer, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Ultimately, the issuance of an HRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (Mi nn.
Florkime Sannie-joy Paye v. Abdullah Kiatamba Minn. Ct. App. 2018
for abuse of discretion.” Peterson v. Johnson
Erik Anderson, et al v. David Robert Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Peterson v. Johnson , d 758, 761 (Minn. App. 2008).
Joseph Charles Adler v. Jennifer Lynn Adler Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Pakou Lee-Barrios and o/b/o Minor Child v. Eric Joseph Vacko Below, Brittany Ann Vacko Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Michael Olsen, Krisann Jeanne Olsen v. James Robert Greger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
29, 2004); a de novo standard of review to a district court’s conclusions of law, and an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court’s decision to issue an HRO based on a finding that a person has engaged in harassment , Witchell v. Witchell , -32 (Minn. App. 2000).
Sarah Yule v. Jan Kehlenbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Peterson v. Johnson , (explaining that the authority to grant an HRO is statutory and that appellate courts review questions of statutory interpretation de novo).
Sarah B. Janecek v. Lee Aaron Rosenthal Minn. Ct. App. 2017