State v. A.V.G

2 Citing cases

  1. Haley v. Talentwise, Inc.

    9 F. Supp. 3d 1188 (W.D. Wash. 2014)   Cited 20 times
    Finding that a § 1681e(b) claim survived the CRA's 12(b) motion as the plaintiff identified “specific parts of the report that are incorrect, inconsistent, or misleading,” including the fact that the “same charge had two different dispositions”

    Second, the cases do not discuss the FCRA—they discuss the expungement of criminal records. See e.g., State v. A.V.G., No. A09–892, 2010 WL 935357, at *2 (Minn.Ct.App. March 16, 2010). Third, TalentWise's interpretation of the statute works against the consumer, contradicting Congress's intent.

  2. State v. Bobola

    168 N.H. 771 (N.H. 2016)   Cited 7 times
    Stating that "under RSA 651:5, VI, if a person is convicted of multiple offenses, he may not be granted an annulment as to any of the convictions until the time requirements of RSA 651:5, III are met for all the convictions"

    See, e.g.,State v. Miller, No. 90624, 2004 WL 1245619, at *2 (Kan. Ct.App. June 4, 2004) (defendant seeking to expunge alternative charge did not meet the statutory requirement that a defendant be "found not guilty in court proceedings"); State v. A.V.G., No. A09–892, 2010 WL 935357, at *2 (Minn.Ct.App. Mar. 16, 2010) ("While respondent contends that his acquittal of the more serious assault charge resulted in a favorable outcome, the statute permits expungement only when all charges arising out of the same incident are resolved in the defendant's favor."); Stoddard v. State, 395 Md. 653, 911 A.2d 1245, 1247 (2006) ("Charges arising ... from the same incident, transaction, or set of facts as the count to which a criminal defendant pleads guilty comprise a single unit, and therefore may not be expunged."); Com. v. Lutz, 788 A.2d 993, 1000–01 (Pa.Super.Ct.2001) (defendant not entitled to expungement of charges that were dismissed as part of a plea agreement where defendant admitted to culpability of the dismissed charges as part of the plea); but seeLucas v. State, 993 N.E.2d 1159, 1159 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) ("While the statute is not a model of clarity, we conclude that it was intended to apply to any dismissed charge and not just in cases where all charges have been dismissed."). Although we recognize