Legal Opinion
State v. Botsford
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided June 26, 2001No. C6-00-2209, C7-00-2221PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KALITOWSKI, Judge
The City of Minneapolis contends the district court erred in granting respondent’s motion to dismiss a charge of indecent conduct pursuant to Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 385.160(b) (2001), arguing that the language of section (b) prohibiting “other sexual conduct” is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The district court also certified as important and doubtful the question of whether appellant must establish that respondent’s conduct was legally obscene in order to prove respondent’s conduct was “lewd or lascivious” or “indecent or lascivious” in violation…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- City of Erie v. Pap's A. M.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Dunham v. RoerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- Denault v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2017
- City of Elko v. AbedCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- State v. StockwellCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
- Johnson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.