Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 609. CRIMINAL CODE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 609.34 (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[Repealed]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MS 2022 [Repealed, 2023 c 52 art 4 s 25]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1979–2017 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 1990). · cites it 16× “In a locale where a predominant employer enforced such a policy, economic pressures might lead two similarly situated individuals to forsake the marital union and live together in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.34 [fornication statute].”
State v. Ford, 397 N.W.2d 875 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 4× “5, a gross misdemeanor; and one count of fornication, Minn.Stat. § 609.34, a misdemeanor. The complaint alleged in considerable detail that, during the course of his employment, Ford granted special favors and privileges to four specific minor female students at Shakopee High…”
State Ex Rel. McClure v. Sports & Health Club, Inc., 370 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 2× “Minnesota Statutes § 609.34 (1984) declares such relationship to be a crime: When a man and a single woman have sexual intercourse with each other, each is guilty of fornication, which is a misdemeanor.”
Kraft, Inc. v. State, 284 N.W.2d 386 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 2× “In a locale where a predominant employer enforced such a policy, economic pressures might lead two similarly situated individuals to forsake the marital union and live together in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.34 . 3 Such an employment policy would thus undermine the preferred…”
Richardson v. Nw. Christian Univ., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (D. Or. 2017). “2d at 5 , the court cited a criminal statute prohibiting “fornication,” defined as “[w]hen any man and single woman have sexual intercourse with each other,” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.34 . The court then noted that it had, in an earlier decision, “unanimously concluded that the…”
Owens v. State, 724 A.2d 43 (Md. 1999). “272, § 18 (West 1990); Minn.Stat. Ann. § 609.34 (West 1987); Miss.”
Ganzy v. Allen Christian Sch., 995 F. Supp. 340 (E.D.N.Y 1998). “272, § 18 (West 1990); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.34 (West 1987); Miss.”
State v. Rothering, 397 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “In three respects, gender, marital status, and the nature of the act, a person can commit criminal sexual conduct in the first and third degrees without committing fornication.”
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Off. of Navajo Labor Relations, 6 Navajo Rptr. 246 (1990). “It also noted that such a policy could discourage employees from marrying: In a locale where a predominant employer enforced such a policy, economic pressures might lead two similarly situated individuals to forsake the marital union and live together in violation of Minn. Stat.…”
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.