Legal Opinion · Dissent

Robbinsdale Clinic, P.A. v. Pro-Life Action Ministries

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 19, 1994No. C1-93-1951Published

1DissentLansing, Judge

I respectfully dissent because I disagree with the majority’s constitutional analysis and its disposition of the appeal. The district court crafted a comprehensive injunction to deal with the escalating problems caused by protestors near the Robbinsdale Clinic. The injunction imposes time, place, and manner restrictions on expression. See Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 298,104 S.Ct. 3065, 3071, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984).

Time, place, and manner restrictions are valid only if they are content neutral; narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest; and…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-ViolenceSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Frisby v. SchultzSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Hopp v. HoppSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API