Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Matter of Welfare of SLJ, 263 N.W.2d 412.

70 citing documents.

In Re the Welfare of R.A.V. 464 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1991
In Re the Welfare of R.A.V. 464 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1991
(disorderly conduct statute limited to “fighting words” to preserve constitutionality); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. at 769 n. 24, 102 S.Ct.
State v. Grover 437 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1989
State v. Grover 437 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1989
State v. Krawsky 417 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Krawsky 417 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Klimek 398 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Klimek 398 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
1(3), but only after limiting its proscription to “fighting words.”
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
State v. Ackerman 380 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Ackerman 380 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
His argument is based on where the court held such words did not constitute fighting words.
State v. Andersen 370 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Andersen 370 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(disorderly conduct statute punished both constitutionally protected and unprotected conduct).
Thompson v. City of Minneapolis 300 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1980
Thompson v. City of Minneapolis 300 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1980
We have observed that “[although the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines are conceptually distinct, in the First Amendment context they tend to overlap, since statutes are often overly broad because their language is vague as to what behavior is proscribed.”
City of Little Falls v. Witucki 295 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1980
City of Little Falls v. Witucki 295 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1980
1(3) (1978), 1 which this court held constitutional by construing it to proscribe only “fighting *245 words.”
State v. White 292 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1980
State v. White 292 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1980