State v. Mindt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that, while the “clearly erroneous” standard is deferential, “[s]light evidence is not sufficient evidence; a mere modicum cannot rationally support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• explaining that a civil protection order is “designed” in part to “protect a petitioner from emotional violence” and “provide the petitioner ‘a measure of peace of mind’” (quoting Maldonado v. Maldonado, 631 A.2d 40, 43 (D.C. 1993))
• finding “the display of a caller’s identity on a cellphone might sometimes depend on human inputs (e.g., the entry of a ‘contact’) rather than solely ‘computer- generated data’ ”
• “A CPO is designed to, among other things, protect a petitioner from emotional violence, see Richardson v. Easterling, 878 A.2d 1212, 1217 n.6 (D.C. 2005), and provide the petitioner ‘a measure of peace of mind,’ Maldonado v. Maldonado, 631 A.2d 40, 43 (D.C. 1993).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).