Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 210A.04 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1988 c 578 art 2 s 12]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1978–2007 · leading case: Scheibel v. Pavlak, 282 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scheibel v. Pavlak, 282 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 10× “On November 24, 1978, a group of District 67A voters brought suit to vacate the election on the grounds that the reprint contained "false information" within the meaning of section 210A.04 of the Minnesota election law.”

Matter of Contest of Gen. Election, 264 N.W.2d 401 (Minn. 1978). · cites it 8× “We turn next to the trial court's conclusion that the portion of the circular quoted above violated § 210A.04, subd. 1, by containing "false information with respect to the personal or political character or acts of any candidate [Meland], which is designed or tends to elect,…”

Kennedy v. Voss, 304 N.W.2d 299 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 8× “Contestant-respondent alleges that contestee-appellant, a successful candidate for the office of Dakota County Commissioner, distributed campaign literature containing false statements, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 210A.04, subd. 1 (1980). Acting District Court Judge Elmer J.”

Bundlie v. Christensen, 276 N.W.2d 69 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 4× “Appellant Bundlie raises two issues: Did Christensen’s campaign literature violate Section 210A.04 subd. 1 of the Minnesota Fair Campaign Practices Act? Do the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of Professional Responsibility apply to this case? 1.”

Pavlak v. Growe, 284 N.W.2d 174 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 2× “Pavlak had caused to be distributed campaign literature containing false information in violation of Section 210A.04 of the Fair Campaign Practices Act.”

Fine v. Bernstein, 726 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Id. The incumbent supported various items in the budget, however, voted “no” because the budget included an appropriation with which the incumbent disagreed.”

Burns v. Valen, 400 N.W.2d 123 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “02); Minn. Stat. § 210A.04 (“known by that person to be false”).”

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.