Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. R.H.B., 821 N.W.2d 817.

47 citing documents.

Alpha News, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
5(a) (2020); at n.2 (Minn. 2012) (observing that 7 the petitioner bears the burden of proof under subdivision 5(a)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A19-1223 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
At Home Apartments, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 817, 822 (Minn. 2012).
A18-0312 A18-0313 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(noti ng that the burden of persuasion shifts to the opposing party once a petitioner meets the legal threshold in Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citation omitted); see Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Under an abuse of discretion standard, we will not overrule the district court unless the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner or based its ruling on an erroneous interpretation of the law.” (M inn.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
favor of the petitioner.” If a petitioner meets this legal threshold, the di strict court “shall grant the petition to seal the record unless the agency or jurisdiction whose records wo uld be affected establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the interests of the public and public safety outweigh 4 the disadvantages to the petitioner of not sealing the record.” d 817, 821 (Minn. 2012) (describing “two-step procedure for statutory expungement”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Before concluding, we n ote that appellant’s to attack the district court’s findings as generalized and unremarkable.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Under this standard, “we will not overrule the district court unless the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner or based its ruling on an erroneous interpretation of the law.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
He argues that the supreme court recognized “permis sive” d 817, 821 n.2 (Minn. 2012), even though no case has relied on R.H.B.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. M. J. R. D. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. M. J. R. D. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2 discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner or based its ruling on an erroneous interpretation of the law.”
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. A. K. N. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. A. K. N. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellate courts “will not overrule the district court unless the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner or based its ruling on an erroneous interpretation of the law.”
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Under an abuse of discretion standard, we will not overrule the district court unless the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner or based its ruling on an erroneous interpretation of the 4 law.”
Steven Wrolstad v. Benjamin Napper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Steven Wrolstad v. Benjamin Napper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. B. T. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. B. T. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. J. E. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. J. E. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Under an abuse of discretion standard, [an appellate court] will not overrule the district court unless the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner or based its ruling on an erroneous interpretation of the law.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. P. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. P. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Therefore, “we will not overrule the district court unless the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner or based its ruling on an erroneous interpretation of the law.”
State of Minnesota v. D. R. F. 878 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. D. R. F. 878 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ANALYSIS “[I]nterpretation of [the expungement] statute is a legal question subject to de novo review,” but “[an appellate court] will review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s determination that the State failed to sustain its burden of persuasion.” 822 (Minn. 2012) (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. A. Y. G., a/k/a A. Y. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. A. Y. G., a/k/a A. Y. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(finding that when the district court is tasked with weighing the equities in a balancing test, the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion).
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 853 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
An appellate court reviews statutory-interpretation questions de novo, as legal questions
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
6 An appellate court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo, as legal questions
State v. Greenman 825 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2013