Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Fisher v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1999Compulsion is the “touchstone of the Fifth Amendment.” Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977); see also South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 562 , 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 397 , 96 S.Ct. 1569 , 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976) (stating that “[t]he Court has held repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of ‘physical or moral compulsion’ exerted on the person asserting the privilege”)). 1999Compulsion is the “touchstone of the Fifth Amendment.” Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977); see also South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 562 , 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 397 , 96 S.Ct. 1569 , 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976) (stating that “[t]he Court has held repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of ‘physical or moral compulsion’ exerted on the person asserting the privilege”)). | 2 | 2 |
Mobile Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. v. Racheal L. Hooten f/k/a Racheal L. Jonesgreen1 sentence2025We have held that a claim like Williams’—in which the allegations in the complaint are limited to the individualized harm caused to the person asserting the claim—“does not advance state interests and has no public benefit.” Mobile Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. v. Hooten, 889 N.W.2d 27, 34 (Minn. App. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Nootgreen1 sentence2024See Bailey v. Noot, 324 N.W.2d 164 , 167–68 (Minn. 1982) (refusing to hear a constitutional claim because the person asserting the claim “cannot know at this time” whether a constitutional right will be violated). | 1 | 1 |
South Dakota v. Nevillegreen2 sentences1999Compulsion is the “touchstone of the Fifth Amendment.” Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977); see also South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 562 , 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 397 , 96 S.Ct. 1569 , 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976) (stating that “[t]he Court has held repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of ‘physical or moral compulsion’ exerted on the person asserting the privilege”)). 1999Compulsion is the “touchstone of the Fifth Amendment.” Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977); see also South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 562 , 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 397 , 96 S.Ct. 1569 , 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976) (stating that “[t]he Court has held repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of ‘physical or moral compulsion’ exerted on the person asserting the privilege”)). | 1 | 1 |
Steenberg v. Kaysengreen2 sentences1984See Funchie v. Packaging Corporation of America, 494 F.Supp. 662, 666 (D.Minn.1980); Steenberg v. Kay sen, 229 Minn. 300, 309-10 , 39 N.W.2d 18, 23 (1949). 1984See Funchie v. Packaging Corporation of America, 494 F.Supp. 662, 666 (D.Minn.1980); Steenberg v. Kay sen, 229 Minn. 300, 309-10 , 39 N.W.2d 18, 23 (1949). | 1 | 1 |
Funchie v. Packaging Corp. of Americagreen1 sentence1984See Funchie v. Packaging Corporation of America, 494 F.Supp. 662, 666 (D.Minn.1980); Steenberg v. Kay sen, 229 Minn. 300, 309-10 , 39 N.W.2d 18, 23 (1949). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lefkowitz v. Cunningham
green
2 sentences1999Compulsion is the “touchstone of the Fifth Amendment.” Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977); see also South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 562 , 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 397 , 96 S.Ct. 1569 , 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976) (stating that “[t]he Court has held repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of ‘physical or moral compulsion’ exerted on the person asserting the privilege”)). 1999Compulsion is the “touchstone of the Fifth Amendment.” Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806 , 97 S.Ct. 2132 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977); see also South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 562 , 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 397 , 96 S.Ct. 1569 , 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976) (stating that “[t]he Court has held repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of ‘physical or moral compulsion’ exerted on the person asserting the privilege”)). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.