Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rund, 896 N.W.2d 527.

107 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Christopher Carl Remley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Dominique Dreshaun Malone Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-33 (Minn. 2017) (stating that when the district court gives improper or inadequate reasons for a downward departure, the appellate court may independently review the record to determine if there are alternate gr ounds to support it).
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth James Harrison, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A district court abuses its discretion when its reasons for departure are improper or inadequate.”
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Kay Schrupp Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A district court abuses its discretion when its reasons for departure are improper or inadequate.”
State of Minnesota v. Steven Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Substantia l and compelling circumstances for a durational departure are those which demonstrate that the defendan t’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jessten Gordon Grover Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Subst antial and compelling circumstances for a durational departure are those which demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less se rious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. John Willis Netherton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating 8 “the terroristic- threats statute includes more than one mens rea: either the purpose of terrorizing or a reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing”); d 592, 596 (Minn. 2008) (stating that reckless discharge under Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd.