Legal Opinion

State v. Peter

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 3, 2011No. A10-1263PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KLAPHAKE, Judge.

Appellants were charged with disorderly conduct in violation of Minneapolis, Minn. Code of Ordinances § 385.90 (1991) (disorderly conduct ordinance), for protesting outside Ribnick Furs and Leather (Ribnick Fur) in downtown Minneapolis. They appeal from their convictions following a joint jury trial. Because the evidence was insufficient to convict appellants of disorderly conduct, when their statements and conduct did not rise to the level of “fighting words,” and their loud chanting and yelling were “inextricably intertwined” with their political protest, which was…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Snyder v. PhelpsSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  2. Baribeau v. City of MinneapolisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
  3. Matter of Welfare of S. L. J.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
  4. State v. MacHholzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
  5. In Re the Welfare of T.L.S.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Gleason v. SmolinskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API