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

Minn. Stat. § 554.03 (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[Repealed]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MS 2022 [Repealed, 2024 c 123 art 18 s 16]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 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · 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 14× “The anti-SLAPP statutes are directed at “SLAPP suits”—“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”—which are lawsuits that target the exercise of “[Ijawful conduct or speech that is genuinely aimed in whole or in part at procuring favorable government action.”
Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed Dist. v. Stengrim, 784 N.W.2d 834 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 17× “The court of appeals remanded for resolution of whether Minn.Stat. § 554.03 immunizes Sten-grim’s actions from liability.”
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 848 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. 2014). · cites it 14× “” Minn.Stat. § 554.03; see also *228 Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed Dist.”
Nexus v. Swift, 785 N.W.2d 771 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 16× “” Minn.Stat. § 554.03. The district court held that to the extent the anti-SLAPP statute required the district court to determine by clear and convincing evidence whether appellant defamed respondent before full discovery could be had and without submitting the case to the jury,…”
Freeman v. Swift, 776 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 26× “Appellant moved to dismiss respondents’ defamation action, alleging that the challenged communications are immune from liability under Minn.Stat. § 554.03 (2008). The district court, after reviewing the content of the communications, denied the motion, holding that, because the…”
Rickmyer v. Browne, 995 F. Supp. 2d 989 (D. Minnesota 2014). · cites it 6× “22, 2010) (“Because defendants have already prevailed on their statute-of-limitations defense, the Court need not reach any of their many other defenses, including whether they are immunized from liability under Minn.Stat. § 554.03.”). Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant…”
Unity Healthcare, Inc. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 308 F.R.D. 537 (D. Minnesota 2015). · cites it 6× “” Minn.Stat. § 554.03. 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…”
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 834 N.W.2d 741 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “Once a district court determines that the moving party has made this threshold showing, “the burden then shifts to the [responding party] to ‘show by clear and convincing evidence that the acts at issue are not immune under Minn.Stat. § 554.03.’ ” Id. (quoting Stengrim, 784 N.”
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 3× “Respondents filed an answer and a counterclaim alleging violation of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Statute, corporate practice of medicine, and immunity from suit under Minn. Stat. § 554.03 . MDI moved for dismissal under Minn.”
Dennis Lougee v. Craig Eugene Pehrson (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “at 229 6 (citing Minn. Stat. § 554.03 ). Thus, in responding to a motion for dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute, “the [plaintiff] carries three distinct burdens[:] .”
Lawrence Leiendecker, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, Appellants/Cross-Respondents (A12-1978), Greenstein, Mabley & Wall, L.L.C., Ruvelson & Kautzer, Ltd., Maria Gloria Fressia, Appellants/Cross-Respondents (A12-2015), Susan L. Triplett (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “” Minn. Stat. § 554.03 . It applies “to any motion in a judicial proceeding to dispose of a judicial claim on the grounds that the claim materially relates to an act of the moving party that involves public participation.”
Jamie Alysha Messerli v. Jonathan Warren Castillo (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “Castillo’s conduct was 1 Castillo also argues that his statements to Messerli cannot be harassment because he is immune from liability under Minn. Stat. § 554.03 (2022). That statute precludes liability for “[l]awful conduct or speech that is genuinely aimed in whole or in part…”
Show all 17 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.