Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State, City of Minneapolis v. Lynch, 392 N.W.2d 700.

23 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
As another example, undercover police officers conducted a traffic stop of a scooter driver.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To establish that the prosecutor misstated the law, Peterson cites this court’s opinion in State, City of Minneapolis v. Lynch , in which we concluded that a conviction of disorderly conduct under the same Minneapolis ordinance may, consistent with the First Amendment, be based on a person’s verbal conduct only if the person spoke “fighting words.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Joseph Deluney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Joseph Deluney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Compare Zais, d at 39-40 (“The statute does not require that ‘others’ are actually affected, but does contemplate that such a result could occur as a consequence of the disorderly conduct itself.”), with State, -05 (Minn. App. 1986) (relying on evidence that “the confrontation between appellant and the police” drew a crowd and that “the officers testified that appellant’s language had the effect of inciting that crowd” to sustain a conviction of disorderly conduct under the city ordinance).1 The
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Kevin Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Kevin Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
at 756 (quotations omitted); (upholding conviction when defendant’s speech incited a club-brandishing crowd).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Peter 798 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Peter 798 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
When protected free speech is involved, the offense of disorderly conduct has been interpreted narrowly and as restricting only “fighting words.” State, -04 (Minn.App.1986) (citing State v. Johnson, 282 Minn. 153, 159 , ).
In Re the Welfare of M.A.H. 572 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Welfare of M.A.H. 572 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-05 (Minn.App.1986) (concluding that jury could find calling police “motherf* * ting pigs” amounted to fighting words where words appeared to be inciting surrounding crowd of 50 to .100 people, some of whom carried clubs).
State v. Renneke 563 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Renneke 563 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Erickson, d at 409 ; State
St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter 481 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter 481 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
For cases specifically advocating the use of in camera reviews when determining whether information in municipalities' police internal affairs files was discoverable to the opposing party, (civil case); -6 (Minn.App.1986); (criminal cases).
Erickson v. MacArthur 414 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1987
Erickson v. MacArthur 414 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1987
-06 (Minn.App.1986); -49 (Minn.App.1985).
State v. Anderson 414 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Anderson 414 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Baseman 395 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Baseman 395 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
we held that the Minneapolis disorderly conduct ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.