Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 544.02 (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[Repealed]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MS 1949 [Repealed, 1974 c 394 s 12]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1946–2017 · leading case: Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 895 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 895 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2017). · cites it 2× “The Leiendeckers prevailed at the court of appeals, and that court’s interpretation of section 544.02 did not present a jury-trial problem, so the Leiendeckers had no reason to assert a constitutional challenge to the statute.”

Nostdal v. Cnty. of Watonwan, 22 N.W.2d 461 (Minn. 1946). “§ 544.02 (§ 9250). Six grounds for, demurrer are given to defendant, only the sixth being here involved, i.”

Jay T. Nygard v. Patrick Walsh (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “at 231 (citing Minn. Stat. § 544.02 , subd. 2(2)). We agree with the district court that appellant has not offered sufficient evidence to satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard of proof required to defeat application of the 2 Appellant does not argue that respondent’s speech…”

Dennis Lougee v. Craig Eugene Pehrson (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 544.02 , subd. 2(2)). The first question in evaluating Pehrson’s anti-SLAPP motion is whether Pehrson engaged in “public participation” when he contacted the Grand Rapids police.”

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.