Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Crawley, 819 N.W.2d 94.

47 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
committed an act of police misconduct, knowing that the information is false.” see also Minn. Stat. § 609.505, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
But the content of speech is only considered disorderly conduct if it consists of “fighting words.” 105-06 (Minn. 2012).
Jason L. Gabbert, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
State v. Muccio , (explaining that overbreadth challenges fail if a statute only proscribes unprotected speech); (explaining that content-based restrictions on unprotected speech are evaluated differently than similar restrictions on protected speech).
Minn. 2020
Subdivis ion 1(4) “is a content-based regulation of speech because whether a person may be prosecuted under the statute depends entirely on what the person says.” See State v. Crawley
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 541, 109 S. Ct. 2603, 2613 (1989) (holding that newspaper had a First Amendment interest in publishing lawfully obtained “truthful information” revealing sexual assault victim’s identity (emphasis added)); d 94, 107 (Minn. 2012) (holding the unlawful-reports-of -police-misconduct statute constitutional under the First Amendment by construing it to punish only those who report information “knowing that the information is false”) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A statute that regulates speech “must not be overly broad.” State v. Crawley
Matter of Welfare of A. J. B. 929 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 2019
Matter of Welfare of A. J. B. 929 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 2019
Hensel , d at 175 (citing State v. Crawley , , 105 (Minn. 2012) ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sumi Mukherjee, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re A.J.B. 910 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re A.J.B. 910 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Crawley , , 102 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Fighting words” are words “that ‘have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to 15 whom, individually, the remark is addressed.’” (quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 573, 62 S. Ct. 766, 770 (1942)).
State v. Hensel 901 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 2017
Linert v. MacDonald 901 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Linert v. MacDonald 901 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Fighting words are “words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Muccio 890 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 2017
State v. Muccio 890 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 2017
Our primary purpose in interpreting a statute is to “give effect to the legislature’s intent.”
State of Minnesota v. Irene Bernice Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Irene Bernice Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2017
be predicated only on a person’s words unless those words are ‘fighting words,’” -11 (Minn. App. 2003) (), defined as “words ‘which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,’” State 4 v. Crawley, n.9 (Minn. 2012) (quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S. Ct. 766, 769 (1942)).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
If the statute does not reach speech that the First Amendment protects, but instead solely regulates speech undeserving of First Amendment protection, the statute is constitutional unless it results in “content discrimination unrelated to [its] distinctively proscribable content.” (quoting R.A.V.
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
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 869 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 869 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The constitutionality of a statute presents a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“we can uphold [the statute’s] constitutionality by construing it narrowly”).
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Jean Crawley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Jean Crawley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Robert Turner 864 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Robert Turner 864 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kaytee Hooser v. Keith Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kaytee Hooser v. Keith Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Melchert-Dinkel 844 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
State v. Melchert-Dinkel 844 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
(citing Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 , 130 S.Ct.
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2012); cert.
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(citing Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2010)).
McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
ommunicated to someone other than the plaintiff’; (2) the statement is false; (3) the statement tends to “harm the plain *730 tiffs reputation and to lower [the plaintiff] in the estimation of the community,” -20 (Minn.2009); and (4) “the recipient of the false statement reasonably understands it to refer to a specific individual.”