Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 2. TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 2.02 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MS 1957 [Repealed, Ex1959 c 45 s 70]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1956–2012 · leading case: City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc., 749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc., 749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2008). · cites it 4× “21(b) (Section 2.02). A ground fault interrupter receptacle is a safety device that replaces a standard outlet and protects against electrical shocks by switching off the power to a circuit if it senses any loss in current.”
State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. 1996). · cites it 4× “Model Penal Code § 2.02 (1962). When the Minnesota legislature drafted its current criminal code in 1963, it borrowed from the Model Penal Code when it set forth the following guidelines as to how it would henceforth designate criminal intent: (1) When criminal intent is an…”
State v. Grover, 437 N.W.2d 60 (Minn. 1989). · cites it 5× “See Model Penal Code § 2.02 (1985). See also, Robinson & Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan.”
Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., 313 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 2× “The home is located in an area zoned R-2, which permits “one and two-family dwelling groups,” according to Article 6, Section 2.02. “Dwelling, single-family” is defined in Article 2, Section 1.”
State v. Gunderson, 812 N.W.2d 156 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). “Model Penal Code § 2.02(2)(b) (1985). Here, the statute’s plain language uses the term “knowingly” as an adverb modifying the verb “violates.”
Magraw v. Donovan, 163 F. Supp. 184 (D. Minnesota 1958). · cites it 2× “1953, § 2.02 et seq.; M.S.A. § 2.02 et seq.) be declared invalid and that the Secretary of State and County Auditors be enjoined from operating the election machinery at future elections under that law.”
Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Tech., Inc., 648 F. Supp. 661 (D. Minnesota 1986). “1 Milgrim on Trade Secrets, § 2.02[1] at 2-21. See also Cudahy Co. v.”
Jurek v. Thompson, 241 N.W.2d 788 (Minn. 1976). “, Duesenberg & King, Sales and Bulk Transfers, § 2.02(1), p. 2-15, suggests: “If an agent in fact purchases and then resells, the contract may be within the statute; the same is true where a broker sells stock which he already owns.”
Honsey v. Donovan, 236 F. Supp. 8 (D. Minnesota 1964). · cites it 2× “§§ 2.02 to 2.715, inclusive, de *11 dared void and violative of both the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the equal-apportionment-of-both-houses-by-population requirement 1 of Article IV, § 2, of the Constitution of…”
Magraw v. Donovan, 177 F. Supp. 803 (D. Minnesota 1959). · cites it 2× “1953, § 2.02 et seq., M.S.A. § 2.02 et seq., and provided for a reapportionment of the legislative districts in the state, said act to be effective on January 1, 1962, and to apply to all members of the Legislature elected for any regular session thereof occurring thereafter.”
Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. v. Nadasdy, 76 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. 1956). · cites it 2× “Section 2.02 of said zoning code reads as follows: “The Village Council shall from time to time re-examine the zoning of the Village or any part of it and may at any time establish all or any part of the Open Development District as a part of any other District herein, or…”
State v. Hage, 595 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. 1999). “2d 575 (1980); Model Penal Code § 2.02 (1974). The two categories most difficult to distinguish, and the most germane to our discussion, are purpose and knowledge.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 2.02(1) — 1 case
Jurek v. Thompson, 241 N.W.2d 788 (Minn. 1976). “, Duesenberg & King, Sales and Bulk Transfers, § 2.02(1), p. 2-15, suggests: “If an agent in fact purchases and then resells, the contract may be within the statute; the same is true where a broker sells stock which he already owns.”
— Minn. Stat. § 2.02(2)(a)(i) — 1 case
State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. 1996). “Model Penal Code § 2.02 (1962). When the Minnesota legislature drafted its current criminal code in 1963, it borrowed from the Model Penal Code when it set forth the following guidelines as to how it would henceforth designate criminal intent: (1) When criminal intent is an…”
— Minn. Stat. § 2.02(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Gunderson, 812 N.W.2d 156 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). “Model Penal Code § 2.02(2)(b) (1985). Here, the statute’s plain language uses the term “knowingly” as an adverb modifying the verb “violates.”
— Minn. Stat. § 2.02(2)(b)(ii) — 1 case
State v. Barsness, 473 N.W.2d 325 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
— Minn. Stat. § 2.02(2)(d) — 1 case
State v. Grover, 437 N.W.2d 60 (Minn. 1989). “See Model Penal Code § 2.02 (1985). See also, Robinson & Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.