Legal Opinion
State v. Romine
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided December 9, 2008No. A07-1244PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
JOHNSON, Judge.
A Dakota County jury found Jeffrey Jack Romine guilty of violating an order for protection (OFP). On appeal, Romine argues that the OFP and provisions in chapter 518B of the Minnesota Statutes are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague, that the district court erred by ordering the forfeiture and destruction of his firearms as part of his sentence, and that a variety of alleged procedural errors require a new trial. We conclude that Romine cannot, in this case, collaterally attack the issuance of the underlying OFP or the statutes on which the OFP was based and that…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- California v. TrombettaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- District of Columbia v. HellerSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Bracy v. GramleySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. NessCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012
- State v. PhippsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012
- State v. NicholasCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2019
- John Mark Hentges v. State of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- State of Minnesota v. Mark William LatimerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.