Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Allen, 482 N.W.2d 228.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
11, 2015); (threats to the victim), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See, e.g. , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Mitchell Le Dac Ho, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
15 factor), review denied (Minn. May 18, 2010); (concluding that “the [district] court did not abuse [its] discretion in considering age as an aggrava ting factor justifying upward departure,” where the victim was 17 years old), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, e.g., State v. Ford , review denied (Minn. Apr.
Walter Johann Happel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Psychological and emotional injury may justify [an] upward departure.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
31, 1994); d 228, 233 (Minn. App. 1992) (“Psychological and emotional injury may justify upward departure.”), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Simmons 646 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Simmons 646 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Munger 597 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Munger 597 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Butterfield 555 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Butterfield 555 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Chao Yang 533 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Branson 529 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Branson 529 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Anderson 520 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Anderson 520 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Patterson 511 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Patterson 511 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-43 (Minn.1991) (only a rare case justifies greater-than-double departure); (abuse of position of trust helped support dispositional and less-than-double durational departure); (multiple penetrations alone will generally not justify greater-than-double departure), pet.