Legal Opinion
Dunham v. Roer
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided January 10, 2006No. A05-421PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DIETZEN, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court order and judgment granting summary judgment to respondent and dismissing appellant’s claims (a) that the harassment definition in Minn.Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1) (harassment statute) is facially un constitutional; and (b) for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and defamation. Appellant contends that the harassment statute is facially overbroad, void for vagueness, and that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on her other claims. Because we find that the harassment statute is not facially over-broad…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Bernhardt v. BernhardtSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2009
- Chase v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
- Lawrence v. City of St. PaulDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2010
- Jay Nygard v. City of OronoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2022
- Paul v. SherburneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2006
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.