DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

82 citing documents.

  • State v. K.M.M. 721 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    at 295 (-58 (Minn.2000)).
  • State v. KMM 721 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    at 295 (-58 (Minn.2000)).
  • State v. L.W.J. 717 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. LWJ 717 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. L.W.J. 717 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    onstitutional rights may be seriously infringed by retention of petitioner’s records; or (2) if constitutional rights are not involved, when the court finds “expungement will yield a benefit to the petitioner commensurate 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.”
  • State v. LWJ 717 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. HA 716 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. H.A. 716 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. H.A. 716 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. HA 716 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. JRA 714 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. J.R.A. 714 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. J.R.A. 714 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. JRA 714 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. A.C.H. 710 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Ach 710 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Ach 710 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. A.C.H. 710 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. C.P.H. 707 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. CPH 707 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. C.P.H. 707 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    at 454 ; (noting that cases decided under section 2990.11 are instructive on issue of what resolved “in favor of’ means under Minn.Stat.
  • State v. CPH 707 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    at 454; (noting that cases decided under section 299C.11 are instructive on issue of what resolved "in favor of" means under Minn.Stat.
  • Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Schultz 676 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Schultz 676 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    The first is statutory: a party may petition for expungement if the criminal proceedings were “resolved in favor of the petitioner.” (quoting Minn.Stat.
  • Wiegel v. City of St. Paul 639 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2002
  • Wiegel v. City of St. Paul 639 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2002
  • Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc. 634 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 2001
  • Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc. 634 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Davisson 624 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Davisson 624 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    -58 (Minn.2000) (explaining that Minnesota courts have the inherent power to expunge criminal records where there may be a serious infringement of petitioner’s constitutional rights or where the benefit of expungement is equal to or greater than the disadvantages to the public).