Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ambaye, 616 N.W.2d 256.

82 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.J.C. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.J.C. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The state does contest that appellant’s cases was resolved “in his favor.” 7 safety outweigh the disadvantages to the petitioner of not sealing the record”); (“The [adult expungement] statute specifically states that if the actions and proceedings were resolved in favor of the petitioner, he or she is presumptively entitled to expungement .
Benda for Common-sense, a Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation v. Denise Anderson, Director of Rice ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Benda for Common-sense, a Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation v. Denise Anderson, Director of Rice ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The proper construction of a statute is a question of law that [an appellate court] review[s] de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
5(b) (2020); (concluding that under s ubdivision 5(b), a petitioner “is presumptively entitled to expungement”).
In the Application of Jose Luis Gutierrez for a change of legal name to Lazarus Twist. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“There are two legal bases that provide for the expungement of criminal records: Minn. Stat. ch. 609A (the expungement statute) and a court’s inherent expungement power.”) ; M.D.T., d at 279 (same).
In the Matter of the Application of Anthony Theodore Wagoner for a Change of Name. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Ambaye , (implicitly sanctioning the district court’s recognition of a compelling interest in “maintaining [a] record of violence”); State v. Hershberger , (“The interest in public safety is also fundament al, and serves as a rationale for the very formation of our state g
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Discover Bank, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(recognizing that “a court’s inherent power to expunge is a matter of equity”); see also St.
A19-1223 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
cords in two situations: when the petitioner’s constitutional rights are infringed by retention of the record, or when the district court decides that “expungement will yield a benefit to the petitioner commensu rate with the disadvantages to the public from the elimination of the record and the burden on the court in issuing, enforcing and monitoring an expungement order.” (M inn.
In the Matter of the Application of: Hollis John Larson for a Change of Name. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, 8-99 ( Minn. 1990); see also State v. Ambaye , (acknowledging that the public has a “compelling interest” in maintaining an individual’s record of violent offenses).
At Home Apartments, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See M.D.T., d at 280–81, 284; –78 (Minn. 2008)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minn. Stat. §§ 609A.01–.03 (2016)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The exercise of a court’s inherent power to expunge is a matter of equity, and we therefore review the district court’s conclusion under an a buse of discretion standard.” State v. Ambaye
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Stephanie Rush, (A16-0249) v. The Westwood Village Partnership, (A16-0249), and Jerry Plummer, (A16-0250) v. Riverside Apartments of St. … 887 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Stephanie Rush, (A16-0249) v. The Westwood Village Partnership, (A16-0249), and Jerry Plummer, (A16-0250) v. Riverside Apartments of St. … 887 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. P. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. P. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. T. J. Z. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. T. J. Z. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Human Services v. S. A. D. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Human Services v. S. A. D. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. A.S.E. 835 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. A.S.E. 835 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
State v. R.H.B. 821 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2012
Explained State v. R.H.B. 821 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2012
State v. M.D.T. 815 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. M.D.T. 815 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. R.H.B. 805 N.W.2d 927 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. R.H.B. 805 N.W.2d 927 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
*929 ANALYSIS “The proper construction of [the expungement] statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”
State v. N.G.K. 770 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. NGK 770 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. N.G.K. 770 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. NGK 770 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. S.L.H. 755 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2008
State v. SLH 755 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2008
State v. S.L.H. 755 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2008
State v. SLH 755 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2008
State v. V.A.J. 744 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. VAJ 744 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. V.A.J. 744 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. VAJ 744 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. KMM 721 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. K.M.M. 721 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2006