Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State, City of Minneapolis v. Reha, 483 N.W.2d 688.

24 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Unlicensed Debt Collection Activity of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Unlicensed Debt Collection Activity of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Safety, rev. denied (Minn. June 26, 1990); (explaining that to prevail on an “unconstitutional-as-applied claim,” appellant must show that the statute was impermissibly vague as applied to their own behavior).
Mohamed Shaaban Sultan, Relator v. City of St. Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Mohamed Shaaban Sultan, Relator v. City of St. Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Ordinances that are “flexible and reasonably broad will be upheld if it is clear what the ordinance, as a whole, prohibits.” State
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(concluding that the appellant lacked standing in an as-applied void-for-vagueness challenge because she engaged in conduct clearly proscribed by the law).
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al., Petitioners, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1984) (citing United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87, 92, 96 S. Ct. 316, 319 (1975)); see also Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside , Hoffman Estates, Inc. , 455 U.S. 489, 495, 102 S. Ct. 1186, 1191 (1982) (“A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others”); State, (same); cf. Olson v. One 1999 Lexus, -08 n.8 (Minn. 2019) (reasoning that “it makes sense that in most cases asserting a due process vi
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Andrew Matiatos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Andrew Matiatos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State, -92 (Minn. 1992).
In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to … 867 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to … 867 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The void-for-vagueness doctrine does not allow one who has received fair warning of the criminality of his own conduct from the statute in question to attack it because the language would not give similar fair warning with respect to other conduct which might be within its broad and literal ambit.” State, (quotation omitted).
State v. Hansen 805 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hansen 805 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“To comport with due process, criminal statutes must provide defendants with ‘fair warning’ by defining crimes clearly enough that an ordinary person can understand what conduct is prohibited.” (-91 (Minn.1992)).
State v. Ali 775 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Ali 775 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a legislative enactment define a criminal offense with sufficient definiteness and certainty that ‘ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’ ” -91 (Minn.1992) (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct.
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a legislative enactment define a criminal offense with sufficient definiteness and certainty that ‘ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’ ” State, -91 (Minn.1992) (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct.
State v. Sherbrooke 633 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Sherbrooke 633 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” State, (Gardebring, J. dissenting) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 , 5 U.S. 137, 177 , 2 L.Ed.
State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
This rule holds especially true in the construction of a criminal statute, (mandating strict construction of penal statutes); see, (construing Minn.Stat.
State v. Stallman 519 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Stallman 519 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(ordinance requiring dwelling to be kept clean and sanitary gives adequate notice of reasonable standard).