Legal Opinion
State v. M.B.M.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 5, 1994No. C7-93-2487PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge.
Upon appellant M.B.M.’s motion for ex-pungement, the trial court determined that she was not entitled to relief under Minn. Stat. § 299C.11 (1992). Under Minn.Stat. § 152.18 (1992), the trial court elected to seal (not return) the county sheriffs records and granted no relief for city police records. Appellant contends that under both statutes she is entitled to the return of her records from the police and sheriffs departments.
FACTS
In June 1990, M.B.M. pleaded guilty to attempted fifth-degree controlled substance possession. She successfully completed the requirements…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hibbing Education Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- State v. C. A.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- State v. R. L. F.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- City of St. Paul v. FroyslandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Barlow v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. C.P.H.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- State v. J.Y.M.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- State v. A.C.H.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- State v. AchCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- State v. BraggCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.