Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc., 309 N.W.2d 735.

39 citing documents.

State v. Pegelow 809 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Pietsch v. Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners 662 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Gresser 657 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Gresser 657 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Century Camera, Inc.
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
In State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc., we considered whether a state statute prohibiting employers from requiring their employees to submit to polygraph and other tests purporting to evaluate the employee’s honesty was unconstitutionally overbroad or vague under both the Federal Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constituti
State v. Wicklund 576 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Wicklund 576 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See, (citing State v. Century Camera, Inc., , 738 n. 6 (Minn.1981)).
State v. MacHholz 574 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1998
State v. MacHholz 574 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1998
State v. Century Camera, Inc., (citing Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 114 , 92 S.Ct.
Federal-Hoffman, Inc. v. Fackler 549 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Federal-Hoffman, Inc. v. Fackler 549 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
v. Caswell Equip., (exercising subject matter jurisdiction in a Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act case seeking injunctive relief with respect to allegedly libelous or disparaging material); State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc., (exercising subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether particular communications are “commercial speech”).
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Casino Marketing Group, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1992
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Casino Marketing Group, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1992
reme Court and this court have stopped far short of extending absolute free speech protection to commercial speech: “Commercial speech is given ‘a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values, * * * allowing modes of regulation that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommercial expression.’ ” State v. Century Camera, Inc., (quoting Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U.S. 447, 456 , 98 S.Ct.
Hanson v. Brothers and One, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hanson v. Brothers and One, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Century Camera, Inc., n. 13 (Minn.1981).
Minnesota League of Credit Unions v. Minnesota Department of Commerce 486 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1992
Minnesota League of Credit Unions v. Minnesota Department of Commerce 486 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1992
In State v. Century Camera, Inc., we defined commercial speech as follows: Commercial speech is “expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience.” It includes speech which does “no more than propose a commercial transaction,” such as price advertising.
State v. Davidson 481 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1992
State v. Davidson 481 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1992
State v. Century Camera, Inc., , 738 n. 6 (Minn.1981).
Bucko v. First Minnesota Savings Bank 471 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1991
Minnesota League of Credit Unions v. Minnesota Department of Commerce 467 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Minnesota League of Credit Unions v. Minnesota Department of Commerce 467 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See State v. Century Camera, Inc.
Bucko v. First Minnesota Savings Bank, F.S.B. 452 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Bucko v. First Minnesota Savings Bank, F.S.B. 452 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In State v. Century Camera, Inc., the court upheld the polygraph statute against á constitutional challenge.
Alexander v. Eilers 422 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Alexander v. Eilers 422 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See State v. Century Camera, Inc.
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The “legislature is empowered to enact legislation for the purpose of public health or general welfare which is legitimately or reasonably related to that purpose.” State v. Century Camera, Inc., (citing City of St.
State v. Scholberg 412 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Scholberg 412 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
uld not); AFSCME Councils 6, 14, 65 & 96, , 570 n. 12 (Minn.1983) (reiterating that the prohibition against arbitrary legislative action embodied in the state equal protection clause, the state uniformity clause and the state special legislation clause is coextensive with that afforded by the federal equal protection clause); State v. Century Camera, Inc., , 738 n. 6, 740 (Minn.1981) (the protection of commercial speech guaranteed by the Minnesota Constitution is no more extensive than the p
City of Cottage Grove v. Ott 395 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
City of Cottage Grove v. Ott 395 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc.
Kamrath v. Suburban National Bank 363 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kamrath v. Suburban National Bank 363 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
National Recruiters, Inc. v. Cashman 323 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1982
National Recruiters, Inc. v. Cashman 323 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1982
The practice of not telling prospective employees all of the conditions of employment until after the employees have accepted the job, like the practice of requiring a lie detector test in State v. Century Camera, Inc., takes undue advantage of the inequality between the parties.
Gawel v. Two Plus Two, Inc. 309 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1981
Gawel v. Two Plus Two, Inc. 309 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1981
: Is Minn. Stat. § 181.75 (1980) 1 unconstitutionally overboard or vague, in violation of rights of freedom of speech guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions?

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by