State v. Clarke
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1911, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- State ex rel. McDonald v. Riley (Minn. 1911)
- State v. Tracy (Minn. 1901)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Chapter 134, Laws 1881, provides that “any person who shall use, in reference to and in the presence of another, * * * abusive or obscene language, intended or naturally tending to provoke an assault, or any breach of the peace, shall be punished,” etc. The complaint under this statute should state the name of the person in reference to and in whose presence the language was .used, if the name be known; and if it be unknown, it is at least necessary to so allege. This is necessary to the identification of the of-fence, not only so as to inform the defendant of the particular thing with which he is charged, so that he may be enabled to prepare his defence, but also that he may conveniently avail himself of an acquittal or conviction in bar of a subsequent prosecution for the same matter. State v. Schmail, 25 Minn. 368.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.