Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Keehn, 554 N.W.2d 405.

20 citing documents.

Paul Scott Seeman, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Moreover, this plain reading of these statutes is supported by State v. Keehn , rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In this case, Wiebrand argues that the CVRB’s submissions did not describe “the nature and amount of the losses with reasonable specificity,” citing State v. Keehn , rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(emphasis added); State v. Keehn , (“The burden of substantiati ng the .
Distinguished State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Our consideration of thi s review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Michael Anthony Powell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael Anthony Powell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Although it would be unreasonable to expect a receipt, or even the exact price, for every purchase, it is not unreasonable to request some amount of detail in the description and general costs of items purchased.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
Peter Loren Martel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Peter Loren Martel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 The district court record “must provide a factual basis for [a restitution] award.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Arends 786 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Arends 786 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1(a); (stating that the record must provide a factual basis to establish an award and that the victim must state the nature and amount of the losses with reasonable specificity), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Thole 614 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Thole 614 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Latimer 604 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Latimer 604 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-08 (Minn.App.1996) (remanding case where victim seeking restitution failed to describe with reasonable specificity nature and amount of losses), review denied (Minn. Dec.
In Re the Welfare of J.A.D. 603 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Welfare of J.A.D. 603 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(victim seeking restitution is required to describe with “reasonable specificity” nature and amount of his or her losses), review denied (Minn. Dec.