Minnesota Appellate Opinions
Published opinions of the Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, collated from public records.
7 opinions matched.
| Docket |
Court |
Filed |
Disposition |
Case |
| a250144 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2026-02-23 |
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
|
State of Minnesota v. Jaisden Harold-Dru Hanners
|
|
… f an order for protection under section 518B.01; violation of a harassment restraining order under section 609.748; or violation of section 609.749 or 609.79, subdivision 1. “Domestic abuse” a …
|
| a250235 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2026-02-09 |
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
|
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jon Hill
|
|
… must “comply with all the terms of any active DANCO, Order for Protection, or Harassment Restraining Order.” The district court stated, “There is an active DANCO, so I expect you fully to comply with the DANCO.” The district court did n …
|
| a240413 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2024-11-18 |
Affirmed in part
|
In re the Custody of A. J.-E. L., William Robert Laurie v. Brittany Elizabeth Nebel, ...
|
| a230845 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2024-06-17 |
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
|
Justin Dean Schultz v. Analisa French Perkins
|
| a231068 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2024-05-13 |
Affirmed in part and reversed in part
|
Kevin James Kleinschmidt v. Angela Rose Farkash
|
| A16-942 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2016-12-27 |
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
|
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker
|
|
… evidence supports the findings. Early in the separation, respondent obtained a harassment restraining order against appellant. The record shows that appellant was unable to participate in therapy sessions with respondent’s therapist becau …
|
| A15-2022 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2016-06-20 |
Affirmed in part and reversed in part
|
Lucas Heikkila, individually and o/b/o Minor Children v. Jeff Dietman
|
|
… court’s ex parte temporary harassment restraining order (THRO) and subsequent harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the THRO; (2) the district court abused its discretion in excluding …
|