Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Kenneth E. Andersen, 871 N.W.2d 910.

197 citing documents.

State v. Boettcher 931 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2019
State v. Boettcher 931 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2019
State v. Andersen , , 913 (Minn. 2015).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Commitment of Johnson 931 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Commitment of Johnson 931 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Andersen , , 916 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Berkeley Read Lewis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted)).
Gary Lee Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” However, “ questions 15 concerning the authority of the district court to order restitution are questions of law subject to de novo review.” State v. Andersen , (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A district court has broad di scretion to award restitution, an d the district court’s order will not be reversed absen t an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Anderson
Campbell v. State 916 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2018
Campbell v. State 916 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2018
State v. Andersen , , 915 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Andersen , d 910, 915 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. I. Q., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A district court has broad discretion to award restitution,” and its order “will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
3 “A district court has broad discretion to award restitution, and the district court’s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Anderson
A17-0853 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.” (citation omitted).
Howard v. State 909 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Howard v. State 909 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Andersen , , 913 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Andersen , (“A district court has broad discretion to award restitution, and the district court’s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.”).2 Restitution History and Background Restitution is an age -old concept, stretching back to ancient societies where offenders were required to
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(st ating party waives allegations of error unsupported by authority).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Browder v. State 899 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Browder v. State 899 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A16-0880 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A district court has broad discretion to award restitution, and the district court’s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Andersen
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The district court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.”
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted).
In re Timothy Leslie, Dakota County Sheriff, State of Minnesota v. John David Emerson 889 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2017
In re Timothy Leslie, Dakota County Sheriff, State of Minnesota v. John David Emerson 889 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2017
at 303; (citing Schnagl for the proposition that “a motion filed in a criminal proceeding was not the proper procedure to obtain review of the DOC’s actions, as the DOC was not a party”).
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tetee Saryee d/b/a Zion Home Care, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tetee Saryee d/b/a Zion Home Care, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Robert Neil Ackland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Neil Ackland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The district court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.” reh’g denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Stevan Andre Wilkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stevan Andre Wilkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s 19 brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and 16 not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted)).