Cited by

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

137 citing documents.

Dane Michael Vandervoort, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Katherine Dillard Rice Hayes, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Megan Marie Johnson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Rebecca Sue Nash, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(applying abuse of discretion review to “the issuance of an HRO”).
Elizabeth Annette Robyn Wolter, OBO A. R. W., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Breanna Marie Borth, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Joseph Lee Selisker, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kallys Albert Sr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sarah Anne Trisko, and o/b/o Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kadi Beth Jackson, o/b/o Minor Children, Respondent, vs. Robert Bradley Daniel, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Joel Leslie Wells, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A20-1369 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Molly Elizabeth Joyce, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Mitchell Wilfred Suess, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Wayne Floyd O’Connor, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Ultimately, the issuance of an HRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Peter Richard Rickmyer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5 (2018), and “[s]tatutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo,”
Sandra May Schumann, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(reversing a finding that a report to law enforcement constituted harassment).
Sharon McCrea, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 758, 763 (Minn. App. 2008).
Gail Marie Peterson, and o/b/o minor child, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Annikki Lee Hockert, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1(a)(1) ; see also Peterson v. Johnson , -62 (Minn. App. 2008) .
John Patrick Becker, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
5(a), (b)(3) (2018); -62 (Minn. App. 2008).
Elsayed M. Elsaid Mahmoud, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Because the statutory definition has two prongs, harassment may be proven in either of two ways.”
Caitlyn Elizabeth Stenerson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 758, 761 (Minn. App. 2008).
Jenna Marie Bjerke, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Peterson v. Johnson
Gabrielle Marie Geraci, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Ultimately, the issuance of an HRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Emily Peterson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jason McKenzie, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Peterson v. Johnson , Kush v. Mathison , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Heather Marie Romanowicz, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Terence Lakin, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tara Ann Nesmoe-Thompson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jacqueline Marie Thibodeaux, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tracy Leigh Thompson o/b/o D. X. T., petitioner, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Randall Tague and obo Minor, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
6 “[T]he issuance of an HRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Dean Murray, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Ultimately, the issuance of an HRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (Mi nn.
Florkime Sannie-joy Paye, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
for abuse of discretion.” Peterson v. Johnson
Erik Anderson, et al., petitioners, Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Peterson v. Johnson , d 758, 761 (Minn. App. 2008).
Pakou Lee-Barrios and o/b/o Minor Child, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Joseph Charles Adler, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Michael Olsen, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Paula Polinsky, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Troy Kenneth Scheffler, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017