In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Tedman John HEIM, a Minnesota Attorney, Reg. No. 286047, 857 N.W.2d 537 (Minn. 2015). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Tedman John HEIM, a Minnesota Attorney, Reg. No. 286047, 857 N.W.2d 537 (Minn. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 1 distinct case · …would forget about three different containers of ammunition and allow the ammunition to make its way into hinton's apartment. at p. 542 ⚠ not in text
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015 2020 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a defendant must exercise dominion and control over the contraband itself in order to constructively possess it.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock
Minn. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
See State v. Logan, 535 N.W.2d 320, 325 (Minn. 1995) (addressing “issues raised by defendant on appeal that may arise on retrial”); State v. Hunter, 857 N.W.2d 537, 543 (Minn. App. 2014) (addressing an issue raised by a defendant “in the interests of judicial economy because it will likely arise again on remand”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Chaz Edwin Johnson
Minn. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
And this court has observed that “innocent explanations, when taken together with the police officers’ training and experience, . . . are sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion.” State v. Hunter, 857 N.W.2d 537, 544 (Minn. App. 2014).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Sarah Jean Mona Dubinsky (5×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
State v. Hunter, 857 N.W.2d 537, 543 (Minn. App. 2014).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton (5×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
We therefore disregard girlfriend’s testimony and conclude that the circumstances proved show that Hinton knowingly possessed the firearm and ammunition in his apartment and are consistent with guilt. 5 Second, Hinton argues that the district court erred by concluding that Hinton constructively possessed the firearm because he “had dominion and control over the area where the firearm was found.” Hinton contends that caselaw requires the state to prove that “Hinton had dominion and control over the firearm itself.” (Emphasis added.) We have held that “a defendant must exercise domin…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester (2×) also: Cited "see"
Minn. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
State v. Hunter, 857 N.W.2d 537, 542 (Minn. App. 2014).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
State v. Hunter, 857 N.W.2d 537, 542 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Sam
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. State v. Hunter, 857 N.W.2d 537, 542-43 (Minn.App.2014) (holding that a jury instruction misstated the law when it instructed that a defendant must exercise dominion and control over only the place where the contraband is found and stating that the law requires a defendant to have exercised dominion and control over the contraband itself).
cited Cited "see" State of Minnesota v. Carlos Maurice Harris
Minn. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hunter, 857 N.W.2d 537, 542 (Minn. App. 2014) (stating this rule).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Tedman John Heim, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 286047.
A13-435.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Jan 7, 2015.
857 N.W.2d 537
Alan.
Published

ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition and supplementary petition for disciplinary action against respondent Tedman John Heim. The case was referred to a referee. Following a hearing, the referee concluded that respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct, namely, misappropriation of client funds, forgery of a client’s signature on a settlement check, engaging in a pattern of false statements to his client and his law partner to conceal the misappropriation, submission of misleading documents to a court and opposing counsel, failure to deposit client funds into a trust account, failure to keep required trust account books and records, making unauthorized personal charges on his law firm’s business credit card, and being convicted of a felony charge of check forgery/falsely endorsing a check, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(c)(3), 1.15(c)(4), 1.15(h), 3.3(a), 4.1, 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). The referee recommended that the court disbar respondent.

The Director and respondent entered into a stipulation in which they agree that the referee’s findings and conclusions are conclusive and waive their rights under Rule 14(g), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is disbarment.

The court independently reviewed the file and approves the jointly recommended disposition.

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent Tedman John Heim is disbarred;
2. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of disbarment to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals); and
3. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs and $1,222 as disbursements pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alan C. Page Associate Justice