Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Christie, 506 N.W.2d 293.

35 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Unlicensed Debt Collection Activity of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Unlicensed Debt Collection Activity of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[V]agueness challenges under the Due Process Clause must be analyzed as applied to the facts of the case at issue and ‘may be overcome in any specific case where reasonable persons would know that their conduct is at risk.’” (quoting Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 361 (1988)); 20 (Minn. 1993) (“Vagueness challenges not involving First Amendment freedoms are to be examined in light of the applicable facts.”).
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Terrell Garth, II Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Terrell Garth, II Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970)
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Andrew Matiatos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Andrew Matiatos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
w is unconstitutionally vague if it fails “to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits” or if it “authorize[s] and even encourage[s] arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” 1 But “[t]he use of somewhat general language in a statute also does not render it vague.”
State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
Specifically, Juarez’s sentence is not cruel because it is not “out of all proportion to the nature of the crime,” (quoting State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461, 462-63 , ), in light of the gravity of the offense, his recidivism, and the existence of a heinous element.
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 798 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 798 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
at 142 & n. 4, which is a matter of due process under both the federal constitution and the state constitution, (cited in Schwartz).
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
316, 319 , 46 L.Ed.2d 228 (1975)
State v. Jones 659 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2003
State v. Jones 659 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2003
State v. Grossman 636 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 2001
State v. Grossman 636 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 2001
the findings required by subdivision 1 must be based on a preponderance of the evidence.
State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(stating facts found at sentencing stage must be established by preponderance of evidence).
State v. Schwartz 628 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2001
State v. Schwartz 628 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2001
(examining criminal statute to determine whether statute afforded fair warning of the conduct prohibited in order to survive vagueness challenge).
Hard Times Cafe, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 625 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Hard Times Cafe, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 625 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Grossman 622 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Grossman 622 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hannam 601 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Hannam 601 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Moreover, -99 (Minn.1993) held that the preponderance of the evidence standard applied to sentence enhancement under MinmStat.
State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
2547, 2561-62 , 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974)); cert.
State v. Grube 531 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1995
State v. Grube 531 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1995
2547, 2561-62 , 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974)
Matter of Linehan 518 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1994
In Re Blodgett 510 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1994
In Re Blodgett 510 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1994
this court upheld the constitutionality of this statute where sentences are increased solely because the sex offender is dangerous and likely to attack sexually again.