Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Boniek v. Boniek, 443 N.W.2d 196.

28 citing documents.

In the Matter of: Jessica Marie Blom, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of Stacy Joy Fehr On Behalf of Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(citing Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd.
In the Matter of: Tracy Elizabeth Thompson and o/b/o Minor Child v. John Patrick Schrimsher Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of: Tracy Elizabeth Thompson and o/b/o Minor Child v. John Patrick Schrimsher Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of: Paula Jean Ball, for herself and o/b/o W. v. B. and K. A. R. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Paula Jean Ball, for herself and o/b/o W. v. B. and K. A. R. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Ashley Danielle Martin, individually and o/b/o M. M. F. and M. B. F. v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Ashley Danielle Martin, individually and o/b/o M. M. F. and M. B. F. v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Past abusive behavior, although not dispositive, is a factor in determining cause for protection.”).
Kerry M. Mokalla, on behalf of A.M. and A.M. v. Mani M. Mokalla Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kerry M. Mokalla, on behalf of A.M. and A.M. v. Mani M. Mokalla Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Carrie Ann Seibert, individually and o/b/o C. A. A. and C. C. A. v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Carrie Ann Seibert, individually and o/b/o C. A. A. and C. C. A. v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(reversing order for protection when record contained no evidence of present harm or present intention to inflict fear of imminent harm).
In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Schanze v. Daniel Frederick Schanze Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Schanze v. Daniel Frederick Schanze Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 An OFP may be issued if an individual “manifests a present intention to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault.”
In the Matter of: Stanislav Kopylov v. Tatiana Kopylov Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of: Stanislav Kopylov v. Tatiana Kopylov Minn. Ct. App. 2015
2(a)(2); (permitting issuance of OFP when a family or household member “manifests a present intention to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault”).
In re the Matter of: Sara Marie Gasper o/b/o A. R. G., A. J. G. and A. L. … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Sara Marie Gasper o/b/o A. R. G., A. J. G. and A. L. … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Gada, d at 514; (“Past abusive behavior, although not dispositive, is a factor in determining cause for protection.”).
Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons 795 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons 795 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See Pechovnik, d at 100 (affirming OFP based on inference of intent to presently harm victim, based on totality of evidence and past abuse); (affirming OFP when present intent to inflict fear of harm was inferred from totality of circumstances).
State v. Franks 765 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2009
State v. Franks 765 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2009
(explaining that, in light of the past history of abuse, the defendant’s intent to cause his ex-wife to fear bodily injury could be inferred from the acts of leaving a mutilated copy of the parties' marriage license along with a note saying “if this is what you want this is what you will get,” and
Pechovnik v. Pechovnik 765 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Pechovnik v. Pechovnik 765 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Alam v. Chowdhury 764 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Alam v. Chowdhury 764 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that a court may infer an intent to injure, as a matter of law, if “the character of the act is such that an intention to inflict an injury can be inferred”); (affirming the issuance of an order for protection where facts existed allowing the inference of present intent by a former spouse to inflict fear of imminent physical harm).
Chosa Ex Rel. Chosa v. Tagliente 693 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Chosa Ex Rel. Chosa v. Tagliente 693 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 2005

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by