Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wicklund, 589 N.W.2d 793.

45 citing documents.

Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Co. v. Ivy, 177 F. 63, 65 (8th Cir. 1910) (discussing a telegram substation); (discussing a police substation); United States v. Dittrich, 204 F.3d 819, 820 (8th Cir. 2000) (discussing a postal substation).
Hugh McTavish, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 318 (1879)
State of Minnesota v. Logan Hunter Vagle Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kainoa Kaneakua Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kainoa Kaneakua Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Logan Hunter Vagle Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- 97 (Minn. 1999) (considering state constitutional issues on appeal from “sua sponte” ruling by the district court); 552 (Minn. App. 2009) (considering constitutional issues in state pretrial appeal after the district court, “sua sponte, held that the use of initials to ident
Rebecca Lynn Fideldy, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 793, 801 (Minn. 1999) (declining to extend free speech protections of Article I, Section 3 of Minnesota Constitution beyond those protections offered by First Amendment).
Minn. 2023
(explaining that state and federal constitutional protections are triggered only by state action).
In re Petition for Reinstatement of Minn. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The supreme court has held that it will not interpret the Minnesota Constitution to reject the interpretation of a similar provision in the U.S. Constitution “merely because one prefers the opposite result.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
Minnesota’s free speech provision “provides protections co-extensive with those under the United States Constitution.” Jorgenson, d at 601 n.2; –801 (Minn. 1999) (analyzing Minnesota’s free speech clause and “declin[ing] to extend the free speech protections of Article I, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution beyond those protections offered by the First Amendment”).
State v. Anderson 931 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Anderson 931 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Wicklund , , 801 (Minn. 1999) ("[T]he protections of our state constitution are triggered only by state action.").
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
I ; Minn. Const. art. I, § 3 ; State v. Wicklund , , 801 (Minn. 1999) (interpreting the Minnesota Constitution's free-speech provision as equivalent to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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
.”); (interpreting the Minnesota Constitution’s free-speech provision consistently with the First Amendment).
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
State v. Wenthe 839 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2013
State v. Wenthe 839 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2013
Tatro v. University of Minnesota 816 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2012
Tatro v. University of Minnesota 816 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2012
-801 (Minn.1999) (declining to extend the free speech protections of the Minnesota Constitution “beyond those protections offered by the First Amendment”).
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
Likewise, “[t]he Minnesota Constitution does not accord affirmative rights to citizens against each other; its provisions are triggered only by state action.”
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
State v. Fort 660 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 2003
State v. Fort 660 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 2003
Chenoweth v. City of New Brighton 655 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Chenoweth v. City of New Brighton 655 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Co., (holding, in a case involving first amendment rights, that neither the presence of public financing alone nor public financing coupled with invitation to public to come onto property converts privately owned property into public property for purposes of state action).
State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2001
Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2001
State v. Grossman 622 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Grossman 622 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Johnson v. 1996 GMC Sierra, VIN: 1GTEK19R4TE551384 606 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Johnson v. 1996 GMC Sierra, VIN: 1GTEK19R4TE551384 606 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Duncan 605 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Duncan 605 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
1304, 1309 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957)
State v. Leroy 604 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
State v. Leroy 604 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996); (appellate review of the application of constitutional provisions are determinations of law and therefore the standard of review is de novo).