Legal Opinion
State v. Willenbring
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided April 17, 1990No. C4-89-2037PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FOLEY, Judge.
Defendant Timothy Earl Willenbring moved for dismissal of charges against him on the grounds that the statute under which he is charged, Minn.Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(d) (1988), as further defined by Minn.Stat. § 609.341, subd. 6 (1988), is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The trial court denied the motion and certified to this court as important and doubtful the question of whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague.
FACTS
In answering this certified question at the pretrial stage, we are not here trying the facts. Willenbring concedes the following facts for…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Colten v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- State v. NewstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. EnyeartCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- State v. ChristieCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- State v. KimmonsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- In Re the Welfare of K.C.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- State v. SaundersCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.