Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 615.17 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1963 c 753 art 2 s 17]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1959–2011 · leading case: State v. Zais, 805 N.W.2d 32 (Minn. 2011).
State v. Zais, 805 N.W.2d 32 (Minn. 2011). “In Reynolds , we held that the disorderly conduct statute, Minn.Stat. § 615.17 (1953), was constitutional and not void for vagueness.”
Matter of Welfare of S. L. J., 263 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. 1978). “1961, § 615.17, was upheld over the objection that it was vague and indefinite in State v.”
State Ex Rel. Sheahan v. Mulally, 99 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. 1959). “Although § 615.17 punishes disorderly conduct, it does not prohibit, limit, or restrict a municipality from legislating on the same subject.”
Meyer v. Duluth Bldg. Trades Welfare Fund, 149 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (D. Minnesota 2001). “We also give effect to the presumption that the Minnesota Legislature did not “intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable,” Minnesota Statutes Section 615.17(1), for it would make no sense to extend coverage to a worker-spouse, as an “employee” under…”
Matter of Welfare of SLJ, 263 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. 1978). “Although the ultimate finding here was one of delinquency, that does not make irrelevant the existence of the disorderly conduct conviction, which can be used after the juvenile becomes an adult to determine subsequent penal sentences.”
— Minn. Stat. § 615.17(1) — 1 case
Meyer v. Duluth Bldg. Trades Welfare Fund, 149 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (D. Minnesota 2001). “We also give effect to the presumption that the Minnesota Legislature did not “intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable,” Minnesota Statutes Section 615.17(1), for it would make no sense to extend coverage to a worker-spouse, as an “employee” under…”
— Minn. Stat. § 615.17(2) — 1 case
Meyer v. Duluth Bldg. Trades Welfare Fund, 149 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (D. Minnesota 2001). “We also give effect to the presumption that the Minnesota Legislature did not “intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable,” Minnesota Statutes Section 615.17(1), for it would make no sense to extend coverage to a worker-spouse, as an “employee” under…”
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.