Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ness, 834 N.W.2d 177.

99 citing documents.

Jamel Daniel Hoard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When considering a procedural due-process claim, we “first determine whether a protected liberty or property interest is implicated and then determine what process is due by applying a balancing test.” aff’d
State of Minnesota v. James Robert Stepke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Peter Beard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Peter Beard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Robert Stepke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Stepke contends that the “test refusal law is unconstitutional as applied in this case.” “The constitutionality of 3 a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”1 (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Letrell Pierre Brewer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Letrell Pierre Brewer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 177, 182-83 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark Thompson 873 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark Thompson 873 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thompson challenges the constitutionality of the test-refusal statute as applied to him.1 “The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Clifton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To determine whether an individual’s right to procedural due process has been violated, a reviewing court must first determine whether a protected liberty or property interest is implicated and then determine what process is due by applying a balancing test.” aff’d
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Clifton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1(b) (2012); (“[U]nder subdivision 1(b), a domestic abuse no contact order may only be issued as a pretrial or postconviction probationary order.” (emphasis added)).
Sara Elaine Katra v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sara Elaine Katra v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When considering a procedural due-process claim, we “first determine whether a protected liberty or property interest is implicated and then determine what process is due by applying a balancing test.” d 219, 225 (Minn. App. 2012), aff’d
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To determine whether an individual’s right to procedural due process has been violated, a reviewing court must first determine whether a protected liberty or property interest is implicated and then determine what process is due by applying a balancing test.” aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lynn Lippy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lynn Lippy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ray Bennett 867 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ray Bennett 867 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To determine whether an individual’s right to procedural due process has been violated, a reviewing court must first determine whether a protected liberty or property interest is implicated and then determine what process is due by applying a balancing test.” aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Bryan John Rusco Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan John Rusco Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Matthew Allan White v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Matthew Allan White v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Matthew Willems Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Matthew Willems Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Babafemi Adewale Odukale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Babafemi Adewale Odukale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Antone William Guimont v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Antone William Guimont v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehrallian Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehrallian Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-23 (Minn. App. 2012), aff’d, review denied (Minn. Feb.
Brian Jeffrey Serber v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Brian Jeffrey Serber v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 177, 181 (Minn. 2013).
Melysa Kailyn Lau v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Melysa Kailyn Lau v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 177, 181 (Minn. 2013).
Rita Ann Stevens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 850 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rita Ann Stevens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 850 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
Although these two requirements of due process present “analytically distinct bases upon which one may challenge a statute on vagueness grounds,” the United States Supreme Court has called the second basis — demanding ‘“minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement’ ” — the “more important aspect of the vagueness doctrine.” Kolender, 461 U.S. at 358 , 103 S.Ct.