Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Marlowe v. Fabian, 755 N.W.2d 792.
- Anthony B Graham, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
see also Minn. Stat. §§ 243.05, subds.
- State of Minnesota v. Jaye William Snyder Minn. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Jaye William Snyder Minn. 2024
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“By statute, the [department of corrections] must release offenders after they serve their term of imprisonment an d must supervise offenders during their period of supervised release.”) ; see also Minn. Stat. §§ 244.101, subds.
- State of Minnesota, ex rel. Gumdel Nygare Gilo, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- Minn. 2021
-
State of Minnesota ex rel. Gerald Browneagle, Appellant, vs.
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
the habeas petitioner, a risk-level-II sex offender, was placed on ISR after serving two-thirds of his sentence.
-
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Antwone Ford,
Minn. 2019
Marlowe v. Fabian , , the district court properly granted the writ and imposed an appropriate remedy.
-
In re the Marriage of: Beth Ann Bersaw, petitioner, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 792, 794 (Minn. App. 2008).
- State of Minnesota, ex rel. Antwone Ford, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
- State of Minnesota, ex rel., Joshua Sather, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Arturo Martinez, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-95 (Minn. App. 2008) (distinguishing an inmate’s liber ty interest in his initial supervised-release date from an inmate’s continuing confinement because he cannot find approved housing).
- In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Schanze v. Daniel Frederick Schanze Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Schanze v. Daniel Frederick Schanze Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Duncan v. Roy 830 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-
Duncan v. Roy
830 N.W.2d 48
Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marlowe v. Fabian, *52 for support.
- Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Department 783 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Department 783 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- Christopher v. Windom Area School Board 781 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
Christopher v. Windom Area School Board
781 N.W.2d 904
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); (“In general, due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a fair and impartial decisionmaker.”).