Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite City of Mankato v. Fetchenhier, 363 N.W.2d 76.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When, as here, no fundamental rights are implicated, the alleged vagueness of the criminal statute “must be judged in light of the conduct that is charged to be violative of the statute.” (quoting Kolender, 461 U.S. at 369 (White, J., dissenting)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“The commonly accepted definition of lewdness is the quality of being openly lustful or indecent.”).
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
application of the Miller obscenity standards is the only way to ensure that the 1 Using another dictionary, this court rejected a vagueness challenge to the “open or gross lewdness or lascivious behavior” language in Minn. Stat. § 617.23 (1984) and reasoned that the “commonly accepted definition of lewdness is the quality of being openly lustful or indecent.” (citing Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary 1041 (2d ed. 1983)).
In re the Matter of: Kimberly Rose Wangsness and on Behalf of Minor Children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
11, 2001), and have recognized “lewdness” as “the quality of being openly lustful or indecent,”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Nickolas Mousel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Nickolas Mousel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
11, 2001); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 991 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “lewd” as “[o]bscene or indecent; tending to moral impurity or wantonness”).
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 829 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 829 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(quoting Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357 , 103 S.Ct.
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“[A] law is impermissibly vague when it fails to draw a reasonably clear line between lawful and unlawful conduct.”
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
City *229 (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct.
Thul v. State 657 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Thul v. State 657 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Fan 445 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Fan 445 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Christensen 439 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Christensen 439 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
at 2298-99 (footnotes omitted); see also State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , *392 (Minn.Ct.App.1985).
State v. Clark 394 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Clark 394 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Proetz v. Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners 382 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Proetz v. Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners 382 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“A statute is overbroad when its terms sweep too far, regulating conduct which must be permitted.” , 78 *535 (Minn.Ct.App.1985).
State v. Bjornson 378 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Bjornson 378 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The ordinance in question does not on its face encompass any constitutionally protected conduct; therefore, the constitutionality of the ordinance is judged “in light of the conduct that is charged to be violative of the [ordinance].” (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 369 , 103 S.Ct.
State v. Andersen 370 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Andersen 370 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 607 , 93 S.Ct.
State v. Eisenbacher 368 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Eisenbacher 368 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Erickson 367 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Erickson 367 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1985

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by