DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 248 N.W.2d 708.

30 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
    4 However, nudity “in and of itself is not obscene.” n.3 (Minn. 1976); (acknowledging that “nudity is prevalent in advertising, movies and video”).
  • State v. Hartmann 700 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Hartmann 700 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2005
    See, Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186 , 189 n. 2, , 711 n. 2 (1976).
  • State v. Duncan 605 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Duncan 605 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    1 See, e.g., Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186 , (requiring narrow drafting of ordinance regulating public nudity; finding Fairmont ordinance over-broad on its face, unconstitutionally governing protected forms of expression).
  • State v. Lambert 547 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Lambert 547 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    See Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186 , 189 n. 2, , 711 n. 2 (1976) (issue merely stated without argument or analysis is deemed waived).
  • Knudtson v. City of Coates 519 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1994
  • Knudtson v. City of Coates 519 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1994
    The city’s regulation of nudity in bars may be accomplished constitutionally if the regulation has “only incidental impact on freedom of expression,” Koppinger v. City of Fair-mont, 311 Minn. 186 , and if the regulations controlling the expressive conduct are reasonable as to time, place and manner of expression.
  • Knudtson v. City of Coates 506 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Knudtson v. City of Coates 506 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    In Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186, 199-200 , -16 (1976), the supreme court invalidated as overbroad an ordinance that restricted nudity in liquor establishments and other public places.
  • State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. White 464 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. White 464 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    2176 , 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1982); Hoppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186
  • State v. Fan 445 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Fan 445 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    “[T]he states have greater power to regulate nonverbal, physical conduct than to suppress depictions or descriptions of the same behavior.” Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186, 193 , (iquoting Miller v. California, 413 U.S. at 26 n. 8 [ 93 S.Ct.
  • State v. Gray 413 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Gray 413 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1987
    tence of a penal statute susceptible of sweeping and improper application.” The United States Supreme Court has reasoned that such standing is necessary “because persons whose expression is constitutionally protected may well refrain from exercising their rights for fear of criminal sanctions provided by a statute susceptible of application to protected expression.” Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186, 200 , (citations omitted).
  • Spearman v. Spearman 408 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Spearman v. Spearman 408 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186 , 189 n. 2, , 711 n. 2 (1976).
  • Alexander v. Severson 408 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Alexander v. Severson 408 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186, 190
  • State v. Turner 382 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Turner 382 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “nudity is not protected expression, but conduct, which the city has a substantial interest in regulating via its police power.” Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186, 190 , (citation omitted).
  • Anton's, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 375 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Anton's, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 375 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized the same distinction in Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186
  • Bertrand v. API, Inc. 365 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1985
  • Bertrand v. API, Inc. 365 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1985
    Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186, 189, n. 2 , n. 2 (1976); Pautz v. American Insurance Co., 268 Minn. 241, 251-52 , Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339 , Kaehler v. Kaehler, 219 Minn. 536, 537