9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Snyder v. Phelpsgreen2 sentences2023See id. at 462–63 (Breyer, J., concurring) (“To uphold the application of state law in these circumstances would punish Westboro for seeking to communicate its views on matters of public concern without proportionately advancing the State’s interest in protecting its citizens against severe emotional harm.”). 2023See id. at 462–63 (Breyer, J., concurring) (“To uphold the application of state law in these circumstances would punish Westboro for seeking to communicate its views on matters of public concern without proportionately advancing the State’s interest in protecting its citizens against severe emotional harm.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bartyllagreen1 sentence2016I, § 10. “ ‘The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’ ” State v. Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d 8, 15 (Minn.2008) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434. | 1 | 1 |
In re the Welfare of P.C.T.green1 sentence2013See id. at 685 (“[W]e emphasize again that public safety is the touchstone of the analysis.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scruggsgreen1 sentence2009In cases where the prior bad act provides a clear motive for committing the charged offense, see, e.g., State v. Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d 707, 715 (Minn.1988), the evidence could be characterized as highly probative. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1978Affirmed. . «* * * The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 1978Affirmed. . «* * * The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). | 2 | 1978–2016 |
Pennsylvania v. Mimms
green
2 sentences2008While the State contends that the totality-of-the-eircum-stances analysis is the proper one, it argues that Minn.Stat. § 609.117 “passes constitutional muster” under either the special needs or the totality test. *15 “The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). 2008While the State contends that the totality-of-the-eircum-stances analysis is the proper one, it argues that Minn.Stat. § 609.117 “passes constitutional muster” under either the special needs or the totality test. *15 “The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). | 2 | 2008–2016 |
United States v. Lanier
green
2 sentences2016The touchstone of the doctrine is whether the statute “made- it reasonably clear at the relevant time that the defendant’s conduct was criminal.” Id. at 267 , 117 S.Ct. at 1225 . 2016The touchstone of the doctrine is whether the statute “made- it reasonably clear at the relevant time that the defendant’s conduct was criminal.” Id. at 267 , 117 S.Ct. at 1225 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Johnson v. Soo Line Railroad
green
1 sentence1992As we said in Soo Line: “[T]he kind of pleading mistake which satisfies Rule 15.03 does, in fact, timely bring home to the intended defendant notice and knowledge of the pleading mistake, much the same as if the intended defendant had been properly named.” Id. at 899 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
green
2 sentences1978Reasonableness, of course, depends ‘on a bal-anee between the public interest, and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.’ United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 , 95 S.Ct. 2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975).” 434 U.S. 108 , 98 S.Ct. 332 , 54 L.Ed.2d 335 . 1978Reasonableness, of course, depends ‘on a bal-anee between the public interest, and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.’ United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 , 95 S.Ct. 2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975).” 434 U.S. 108 , 98 S.Ct. 332 , 54 L.Ed.2d 335 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.