DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hipp, 213 N.W.2d 610.

43 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    d 610, 612 (Minn. 1973).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    (reversing convictions for unlawful assembly where the evidence did not establish the required elements for two individuals); Johnson d at 755 (reversing convictions where the record d id not satisfactorily contain evidence of wrongful conduct committed by each defendant individually).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    However, “[a] law that is flexible and reasonably broad is nonetheless constitutional if it is clea r what the law as a whole proscribes.” Enyeart, d at 321 (citation omitted); see also State v. Hipp , 298 Minn. 81, 88, (construing statute in context and in light of its intent).
  • State v. Hensel 901 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    See State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 87-88, -15 (1973) (rejecting vagueness challenge to public-assembly statute after examining its context and intent).
  • Obara v. Minnesota Department of Health 758 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Obara v. Minnesota Department of Health 758 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    With the exception of statutes that purport to regulate First Amendment rights, “it is no defense that the statute would be unconstitutionally vague or broad if conceivably it could also be interpreted ‘as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional.’ ” State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 86 , (quoting United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 21 , 80 S.Ct.
  • State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    See State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 86
  • State v. Mauer 741 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Mauer 741 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 2007
    See State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 87 , (“[I]f [a] law is found [to be overbroad or vague as applied to others], it may not be applied to [a defendant] either, until and unless a satisfactory limiting construction is placed on the statute.” (quoting Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 620 , 91 S.Ct.
  • State v. Kortkamp 633 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Kortkamp 633 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 89 , (quoting Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. MacHholz 574 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1998
  • State v. MacHholz 574 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1998
    2908, 2915 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 86-87
  • State v. Miner 556 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Miner 556 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    See State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 82, 88-89 , 615 (1973) (person of common understanding can know what is forbidden by statute that prohibits assembly of three or more persons who “conduct themselves in a disorderly manner as to disturb or threaten the public peace”).
  • State v. Jude 554 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Jude 554 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    Cf. State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 90-91 , -17 (1973) (affirming unlawful assembly convictions where trial court applied limiting construction in instructing jury).
  • State v. Christie 506 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Christie 506 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1993
    at 1957 , (quoted in State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 89 , ).
  • City of Edina v. Dreher 454 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • City of Edina v. Dreher 454 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    2 State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 89-90 , -16 (1973).
  • State v. Willenbring 454 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Willenbring 454 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    1953, 1957 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972), quoted in State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 89
  • State v. Grover 437 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Grover 437 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1989
    E.g., Welfare of S.L.J., d at 419 (constitutionality of disorderly conduct statute overly broad and vague as written upheld by construing it narrowly to refer only to “fighting words”); State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 87 , (construction of unlawful assembly statute narrowed to protect its constitutionality).
  • State v. Gray 413 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Gray 413 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1987
    2908, 2914-15 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973) (citations omitted); see also State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 86-87
  • State, City of Minneapolis v. Lynch 392 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State, City of Minneapolis v. Lynch 392 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    1103, 1105-06 , 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972); State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 87
  • State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc. 309 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 1981
  • State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc. 309 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 1981
    2691, 2706-07 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977); State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 86-87
  • City of Duluth v. Sarette 283 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1979
  • City of Duluth v. Sarette 283 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1979
    See, State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81 , State ex rel.
  • State v. Crace 289 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Crace 289 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1979
    It is well settled that a statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad “ * * * when ⅛6 language employed fails to define the conduct or activities clearly enough to give fair notice of what is prohibited * * *State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 85
  • Matter of Welfare of SLJ 263 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1978
  • Matter of Welfare of SLJ 263 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1978
    1686, 1691 , 29 L.Ed.2d 214, 221 (White, J., dissenting); State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 86
  • City of St. Paul v. Mulnix 232 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1975
  • City of St. Paul v. Mulnix 232 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1975
    As we said in State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81 , in which we upheld the unlawful assembly statute (Minn. St.