Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Stockwell, 770 N.W.2d 533.

19 citing documents.

Dustin A. Grzesik, et al v. City of Pine Springs Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Arguments raised for the first time in an appellant’s rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Dalvin Jarrell Crockett Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Dalvin Jarrell Crockett Minn. Ct. App. 2026
n.2 (Minn. App. 1990) (stating arguments not made in appellant’s brief may not be revived in a reply brief), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua John Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-42 (Minn. App. 2009), in which this court concluded that the defendant’s act of closely following the victim’s car for “several blocks” was sufficient to establish harassment.
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Henderson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Casillas Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2(a)(2) (2006), is not unconstitutionally void for facial overbreadth in part because “it requires that the actor knows her conduct will cause fear and causes that reaction .” 539-40 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Jorgenson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Grp., Inc., (“[A] statute which restricts First Amendment rights is not presumed constitutional.”).
John Louis Corrigan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-41 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re A.J.B. 910 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re A.J.B. 910 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Stockwell , , 537 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The “touchstone” is “whether the statute, either standing alone or as construed, made it reasonably clear at the relevant time that the defendant’s conduct was criminal.” State v. Stockwell , (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Virgil Ernest Beaulieu Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Gen erally, arguments not made in appellant’s principal brief will be deemed waived.” State v. Stockwell
State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(citing to the rules of civil appellate procedure to support the holding that the reply brief is limited to any new subject matter raised in the respondent’s brief and because it was not raised in the respondent’s brief or the appellant’s principal brief it was waived), (“Because appellant failed to raise this issue in her principal brief, we do not address this issue on appeal.”).
State v. Pegelow 809 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Pegelow 809 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Subsequently, -40 (Minn.App.2009), this court upheld subdivision 2(a)(2), which provides that it is unlawful to "stalk{ ], follow[ ], monitor[], or pursue] another, whether in person or through technological or other means."