DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Grube, 531 N.W.2d 484.

37 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Melvin Bilbro Minn. 2025
  • State of Minnesota v. Melvin Bilbro Minn. 2025
    ( (“[A] lone prior act ‘does not and cannot constitute a pattern.’ ”)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    (concluding that the appellant lacked standing in an as-applied void-for-vagueness challenge because she engaged in conduct clearly proscribed by the law).
  • State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
    (“However, a lone prior act ‘does not and cannot constitute a pattern’.”) () Though necessary, the presence of at least two prior acts of domestic abuse may not be sufficient.
  • Lussier v. State 821 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2012
  • Lussier v. State 821 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Wendorf 814 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Wendorf 814 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    “However, when a statute clearly applies to a person’s conduct, that person may not successfully challenge the statute for vagueness.” (citing Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 , 94 S.Ct.
  • State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
    However, a lone prior act “does not and cannot constitute a pattern.”
  • State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
    -90 (Minn.1995) (determining, under the pre-Crawford standard, that affidavits in support of murder victim’s OFP were sufficiently trustworthy to avoid violation of the Confrontation Clause); -98 (Minn.2000) (concluding that the record provided too little information to determ
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Crowsbreast 629 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Crowsbreast 629 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2001
    because the declarant was unavailable and the statements were supported by “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Police officers testified as to the first incident, which occurred on February 15, 1998.
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Aubid 578 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Aubid 578 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    (holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal).
  • State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
    We have reviewed the domestic abuse homicide statute on three prior occasions: in *724
  • State v. MacHholz 561 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. MacHholz 561 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Schmitz 559 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Schmitz 559 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    491 n. 11 (Minn.1995) (defendant’s conduct constituted a pattern of domestic abuse under any reasonable definition of the term “pattern”).
  • State v. Gorman 546 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Gorman 546 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
    See Robinson, d at 239 ; -91 (Minn.1995).
  • State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
    § 609.185(6) (1994), is void for vagueness because it fails to define the term “pattern” in the phrase “past pattern of domestic abuse.” “[W]hen a statute clearly applies to a person’s conduct, that person may not successfully challenge the statute for vagueness.” (citing Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 , 94 S.Ct.