Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Davidson, 481 N.W.2d 51.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant Minn. 2025
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983)
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, –55 13 (Minn. 1992) (applying Miller to sale of pornographic magazines depicting adults); (applying Miller to film graphically portraying explicit sexual contact); –26 (Minn. 201
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
If an adult shares an image of another adult’s intimate parts without the other adult’s consent, the image may not be “patently offensiv e” or “appeal to the prurient interest.” See Muccio, d at 925 (explaining that for an image to be obscene it must involve a “morbid, sh ameful interest in sex”) ().
State v. Muccio 890 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 2017
State v. Muccio 890 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 2017
We have noted that the Supreme Court has defined a “prurient interest” in sex as a “morbid, shameful interest in sex.” (citing Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 504-05 , 105 S.Ct.
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kelly v. Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board 679 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Kelly v. Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board 679 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Therefore, we analyze appellant’s arguments pursuant to the right to privacy that arises from article I, §§ 1, 2 & 10 of the Minnesota Constitution, (stating that right to privacy under Minnesota Constitution is broader than comparable federal constitutional provision), and separately analyze appellant’s Fourth Amendment argument.
McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
1589 , 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996) (emphasis added); (“[D]ue process requires that criminal statutes be sufficiently clear and definite to warn a person of what conduct is punishable.”); (“[C]riminal statutes must be sufficiently clear and definite to inform a person of ordinary intelligence what conduct
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. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
(citation and footnote omitted); (holding city prohibition on nude dancing in bars did not violate Minn. Const, art. I, § 3).
State v. Sheppard 587 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Sheppard 587 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Our courts have held that due process of law requires “that criminal statutes be sufficiently clear and definite to warn a person of what conduct is punishable.” ( (stating that “in the area of minimum and extended sentences the legislature has an obligation to state its intentions as clearly as possible”)).
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. Klosterboer 529 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Klosterboer 529 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Knudtson v. City of Coates 519 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1994
In Re the Welfare of K.C. 513 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re the Welfare of K.C. 513 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Knudtson v. City of Coates 506 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Knudtson v. City of Coates 506 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(in context of obscenity, Minnesota’s freedom of expression guarantee is coextensive with First Amendment).
State v. Christie 494 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Christie 494 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1993