Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Botsford, 630 N.W.2d 11.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant Minn. 2025
-
Overruled
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant
Minn. 2025
8 held that the word “lewdly” is limited to obscene conduct in the context of indecent exposure, we overrule it.
- State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
-
In re the Matter of: Kimberly Rose Wangsness and on Behalf of Minor Children, petitioner, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
behavior” to be “synonymous with obscene behavior,” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
-
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. B. and M. J. B., Parents.
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In State v. Botsford , review denied (Minn. Sept.
- State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr.
887 N.W.2d 847
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Sept.
- State of Minnesota v. Joseph Nickolas Mousel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Nickolas Mousel
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Lewd” means “obscene” or “openly lustful or indecent.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
- Danika Paige Anastasi v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
Danika Paige Anastasi v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“To challenge a district court ruling, a respondent has to file a notice of review, ‘[e]ven if the judgment below is ultimately in its favor.’”1 ( review denied (Minn. Aug.
- City of Duluth v. 120 East Superior Street, Duluth, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
City of Duluth v. 120 East Superior Street, Duluth, Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The constitutionality of an ordinance is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.” 8 review denied (Minn. Sept.
- State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-
State v. Stockwell
770 N.W.2d 533
Minn. Ct. App. 2009
review denied (Minn. Sept.
- Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- City of Elko v. Abed 677 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-
City of Elko v. Abed
677 N.W.2d 455
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“The constitutionality of an ordinance is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
- Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002