State v. Colvin
Minnesota Supreme Court
645 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. 2002)
Michelle Colvin obtained an order for protection (OFP) against her ex-husband, Peter Colvin (defendant). The OFP provided that Peter could not contact Michelle or enter her residence. Peter had violated the OFP twice, making the third violation a felony. One day, a girl living with Michelle came home to find Peter inside Michelle’s house watching television. The district court convicted Peter of burglary, the underlying felony of the charge being Peter’s third violation of the OFP. The court of appeals affirmed. Peter appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lancaster, J.)
Dissent (Anderson, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 159,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,700 briefs, keyed to 186 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.