Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Stockwell, 770 N.W.2d 533.
- 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, Respondent,
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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
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, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Grp., Inc., (“[A] statute which restricts First Amendment rights is not presumed constitutional.”).
-
John Louis Corrigan, petitioner, Appellant,
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, Respondent,
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, Respondent,
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."