Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 554. FREE SPEECH; PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 554.02 (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[Repealed]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MS 2022 [Repealed, 2024 c 123 art 18 s 16]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 895 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney Gen., Keith Ellison v. Am. Petroleum Inst., ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 10× “” Minn. Stat. § 554.02 , subd. 1. The term “public participation” means “speech or lawful conduct that is genuinely aimed in whole or in part at procuring favorable government action.”
Steve Quest v. Nicholas Robert Rekieta (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 7× “§ 13-20 - 1101; Minn. Stat. § 554.02 (2022). But the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that, as applied to tort claims at law, Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute unconstitutionally infringes on the state constitutional right to a jury trial.”
Steven A. Sugarman v. Muddy Waters Capital, LLC, Jason Galanis, ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “Clauses 2 and 3 of Minnesota Statutes § 554.02, subdivision 2, explain the responding party’s burden: (2) the responding party has the burden of proof, of going forward with the evidence, and of persuasion on the motion; (3) the court shall grant the motion and dismiss the…”
Selective Ins. Co. of South Carolina v. Sela (D. Minnesota 2018). · cites it 7× “” Minn. Stat. § 554.02 , subd. 1. If the moving party has made its threshold showing, the second step is to determine whether “the responding party has produced clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the moving party are not immunized from liability.”
Competitive Enter. Inst. & Rand Simberg v. Michael Mann (D.C. 2018). “le to use constitutional avoidance canon to interpret statute to avoid constitutional defect where statutory language “unambiguously require[s] the responding party to produce evidence and the district court to make a finding on whether ‘the responding party has produced clear…”
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 895 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2017). · cites it 52× “After we clarified the law’s procedure, the district court ruled that the section of the law that governs motions “to dispose of a judicial claim,” Minn. Stat. § 554.02 , subdivision 1, violated the Leien-deckers’ right to a jury trial by requiring the trial judge to find facts.”
Back v. State, 902 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. 2017). · cites it 2× “In Leiendecker, we held unconstitutional two clauses of Minn. Stat. § 554.02 (2016), which set forth the burden of proof and the judicial standard for dismissing a specific type of claim.”
Competitive Enter. Inst. & Rand Simberg v. Michael E. Mann, Nat'l Review, Inc. v. Michael E. Mann, 150 A.3d 1213 (D.C. 2016). “e to use constitutional avoidance canon to interpret statute to avoid constitutional defect where statutory language "unambiguously require[s] the responding party to produce evidence and the district court to make a finding on whether 'the responding party has produced clear…”
Mobile Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. v. Racheal L. Hooten f/k/a Racheal L. Jones, 889 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “Does Minn. Stat. § 554.02 violate the non-moving party’s constitutional right to a jury tidal by requiring the district court to find facts before trial to determine whether the moving party is entitled to immunity? II.”
Dennis Lougee v. Craig Eugene Pehrson (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “2014) (modifying slip opinion to remand the case to the court of appeals, rather than to the district court, for further proceedings);2 see Minn. Stat. § 554.02 , subd. 2(3) (requiring dismissal of suit unless responding party produces clear and convincing evidence to…”
Willie J. Bridgeforth, III, Susan J. Swanson v. Smith Strum Inv. Co. d/b/a Winnetka Vill. Apts. (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “06 (2014) Appellant next argues that, because respondent’s statements made to the officer were false and could not be substantiated, they did not meet the requirements of Minn.”
Unity Healthcare, Inc. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 308 F.R.D. 537 (D. Minnesota 2015). · cites it 85× “After a motion is filed seeking immunity under the anti-SLAPP law, the court must determine whether the party seeking dismissal has made a threshold showing that the underlying “claim materially relates to an act of the moving party that involves public participation.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
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.