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. Welke, 216 N.W.2d 641.

25 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant Minn. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant Minn. 2025
    .” (emphasis omitted)); –47 (Minn. 1974) (explaining that “legislative enactments regulating or prohibiting obscenity” address “articles and publications which are patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts” as well as “patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory funct
  • State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    [to an appellate] court’s ultimate power independently to review constitutional claims.” see also Jenkins, 418 U.S. at 160 (“Even though questions of appeal to the prurient interest or of patent offensiveness are essentially questions of fact, it would be a serious misreading of Miller to conclude that juries have unbridled discretion in determining what is patently offensive.” (quo
  • State v. Botsford 630 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Botsford 630 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Regarding the government’s regulation of obscenity, the supreme court has held that the word “obscene” is not “meaningfully defined except in constitutional terms.” State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402, 407 , -46 (1974).
  • State v. Duncan 605 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Duncan 605 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    See, e.g., State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402, 411-13 , -49 (Minn. 1974) (applying due process principle that application of a statute denies fundamental fairness if the law is so vague that potential defendants are not fairly notified of its meaning).
  • State v. Schwartz 598 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Schwartz 598 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    See State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402, 410 , (reviewing court has ultimate power to independently review constitutional claims).
  • State v. Phabsomphou 530 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Phabsomphou 530 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    See State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402, 410 , (a reviewing court has the ultimate power to independently review constitutional claims).
  • State v. Holmberg 527 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Holmberg 527 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    990, 992-93 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402, 411 , (noting that defendant lacked fair notice that materials he sold would be judicially construed as “obscene”).
  • State v. Davidson 481 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Davidson 481 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1992
    State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402, 411
  • State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    Appellant cites Justice Otis’ concurring opinion in State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402
  • State Ex Rel. Collins v. Superior Court 787 P.2d 1042 Ariz. 1986
  • City of Duluth v. Sarette 283 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1979
  • City of Duluth v. Sarette 283 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1979
    In State v. Weike, 298 Minn. 402, 409 , we stated: “Whether, to ‘the average person applying contemporary community standards’ the material is ‘patently offensive’ or ‘appeals to prurient interest’ does not require the assistance of expert testimony and is a question of fact for the trier of fact to determine from the mate
  • State v. Wendling 217 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Wendling 217 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 1974
    *512 Since the alleged criminal acts of defendant took place before our decision in State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402 , he did not have the clear notice of legislative proscription that Welke requires.
  • State v. Carlson 216 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Carlson 216 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1974
    State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402 , fully considers the issues of authoritative construction of an obscenity ordinance in the constitutional framework of Miller v. California, supra, and its companion cases.