Legal Opinion

Rew v. Bergstrom

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 27, 2011No. A10-2145PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KALITOWSKI, Judge.

Appellant James Bergstrom challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate the 50-year extension of an order for protection (OFP) precluding him from contacting respondent Vanessa Rew or the two minor children of their marriage, arguing that (1) the OFP statute violates the First Amendment because it is a prior restraint on speech; (2) the OFP extension violates appellant’s due process rights; (3) basing the extension of the OFP on appellant’s prior criminal convictions violates the prohibition on double jeopardy; (4) applying the 50-year extension to…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Stanley v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. R. A. v. v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. United States v. HalperSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. BergstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
  2. State v. NessCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API