Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Newstrom, 371 N.W.2d 525.

111 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Logan Hunter Vagle Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Logan Hunter Vagle Minn. 2025
citizens are constitutionally guaranteed that the offense be defined in the statute with sufficient clarity to permit them to understand the nature of the conduct prohibited,” we have never required—nor does Vagle cite to any authority suggesting—that to pass constitutional muster, a criminal statute must also specify how a person can bring themselves into compliance with the prohibition.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant Minn. 2025
The Minnesota and United States Constitutions require that criminal statutes meet “due process standards of definiteness.”
In the Matter of the Short Call Substitute Teaching License Application of Jeronimo Yanez. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 1990).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al., Petitioners, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Pollution Control Agency , review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
See State v. Newstrom , , 533 (Minn. 1985) (declining to reach other issues in a case when one issue was dispositive).
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“‘As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’” (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 1858 (1983)).4 The [vagueness] doctrine is based on fairness and is not designed to “convert into a constitutional dilemma the practical difficult
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
6, which is sufficiently definite such that “ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
In other words, a statute is unconstitutionally vague if it “affords no guidance to enforcement officials limiting their discretion in determining whether certain conduct is allowed or prohibited.”
State v. Ness 834 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2013
State v. Ness 834 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2013
State v. Greenman 825 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Greenman 825 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Phipps 820 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Phipps 820 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Penal statutes “must meet due process standards of definiteness under both the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution.” see also U.S. Const, amend XIV, § 1; Minn. Const, art. 1, § 7.
In Re Commission Investigation of Issues Governed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 216a.036 724 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re Commission Investigation of Issues Governed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 216a.036 724 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
1855, 1858 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)
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. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
1855, 1858 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)
Thul v. State 657 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Thul v. State 657 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Kortkamp 633 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Kortkamp 633 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 362 , 357, 103 S.Ct.
State v. Coauette 601 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Coauette 601 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(courts can place limiting constructions on terms of a statute, provided limitation is consistent with legislative intent).
Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
1855, 1858 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) (noting penal laws must be sufficiently definite to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement); (recognizing laws must be sufficiently definite so ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited).
State v. MacHholz 561 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. MacHholz 561 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Welfare of L.J.S. 539 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re the Welfare of L.J.S. 539 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
Humenansky v. Minnesota Board of Medical Examiners 525 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Humenansky v. Minnesota Board of Medical Examiners 525 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
1316,1320 , 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964)