Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Harrington, 504 N.W.2d 500.

30 citing documents.

City of Blaine Police Department, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
17, 2009); -03 (Minn. App. 1993) (holding that a defendant who failed to appeal a harassment restraining order in the case in which it was issued could not challenge the constitutionality of that order in a subsequent criminal prosecution for violating it), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Toni Elizabeth Ickler Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Toni Elizabeth Ickler Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
8 the issuance of a court order precludes a colla teral attack on that or der in a subsequent proceeding”); -03 (Min n. App. 1993) (refusing to consider collateral attack on HRO in reviewing an appeal taken from appellant’s criminal conviction for violating the HRO), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. H arrington, (refusing to consider collateral attack on HRO in reviewing an appeal taken from appellant’s criminal conviction for violating the HRO), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(refusing to consider collate ral attack on HRO in reviewing an appeal taken from appellant’s criminal c onviction for violating the HRO), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Lindsey Middlecamp, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
17, 2009); d 500, 503 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
could not challenge the constitutionality of that order in a subsequent criminal prosecution for violating the order.” The state bases this proposition on State v. Harrington, which included a statement that on the surface seems to support the state’s argument: “Appellants did not appeal the validity of the [HRO], and thus are precluded from attacking it in this subsequent [criminal] action.” d 500, 503 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Joel Thomas Samuelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joel Thomas Samuelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Steven Tyrone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Tyrone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
17, 2009); –03 (Minn. App. 1993) (concluding that appellants were precluded from attacking validity of restraining order on 5 appeal from convictions of violation of a restraining order, where appellants did not appeal issuance of order), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“As a general rule, a party’s failure to appeal the issuance of a court order precludes a collateral attack on that order in a subsequent proceeding.” -90 (Minn.App.2008); -03 (Minn.App.1993) (holding that a defendant who failed to appeal a harassment restraining order in the case in which it was issued could not challenge the constitutionality of that order in a subsequent criminal prosecution for violating it), review denied, (Minn. Sept.
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(rejecting an ex post facto challenge to a harassment restraining order because “[a]lthough the restraining order was based on events occurring before enactment of [the statute], the restraining order did not apply to events occurring *844 before the enactment”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Bjelland 690 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Bjelland 690 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding that, where appellants did not appeal the validity of an order, the order became the law of the case), review denied (Minn. Sept.
In Re the Welfare of D.T.P. 685 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of D.T.P. 685 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding that where appellants did not appeal the validity of an order the order became the law of the case), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Sletten 664 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Sletten 664 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
ng substantially similar issues, parties are bound by the “law of the case.” See, e.g., State v. Bentley, 231 Minn. 531, 540-41 , (holding “law of the case” prevented re-examination of court’s earlier decision involving same legislative authority, same flood control project, same action of executive council, and same constitutional right to damages); (holding appellants precluded from attacking validity of restraining order on appeal because of failure to appeal validity of order which now stood
State v. Grillo 661 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Grillo 661 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
review denied (Minn. Sep.
In Re the Welfare of B.C.G. 537 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re the Welfare of B.C.G. 537 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(citing Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29 , 101 S.Ct.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by