Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Campbell, 756 N.W.2d 263.

20 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Unlicensed Debt Collection Activity of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Unlicensed Debt Collection Activity of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“Constitutional challenges are questions of law, which we review de novo.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
In re: Estate of Maryetta Louise Andrews. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Trust of Eva Marie Hanson Living Trust dated December 11, 1995. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The 2013 amended trust provides that the power of amendment or revocation “may not be exercised by any legal representative or agent acting on [Eva Marie’s] behalf.” Our court has defined “a person acting as an attorney-in-fact under a POA [as] an agent,” and as “stand[ing] in the shoes of a principal.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Williams, 553 U.S. at 304, 128 S. Ct. at 1845; see also State v. Campbell , (stating defendant may challenge statute that purports to regulate First Amendment rights, “even if the statute is neither vague nor overbroad as applied to the defendant”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Paul Nelsen, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 263, 271 (Minn. App. 2008) , review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(noting that allegations of prosecutorial wrongdoing “are not relevant to the question of whether the statut e itself provides judges, attorneys, law enforcement, and jurors with fixed legal standards for determining whether particular conduct is prohibited in a given case”) , review denied
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a legislative enactment define a criminal offense with sufficient definiteness and certainty that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Andrew Matiatos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Andrew Matiatos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[S]crutiny is more demanding when a defendant challenges a statute implicating fundamental constitutionally protected activity, such as speech and assembly, versus a statute prohibiting conduct that is constitutionally within the power of the state to punish, such as blocking sidewalks or damaging property.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to … 867 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to … 867 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
17 and our power to declare a statute unconstitutional is exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.” (quotation and citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a legislative enactment define a criminal offense with sufficient defi *578 niteness and certainty that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec.
In re Disciplinary Action Against Fett 790 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 2010
In re Disciplinary Action Against Fett 790 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 2010
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
However, “this court will not invoke principles of lenity when the statute at issue is not ambiguous.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009