Minnesota Supreme Court, 1936

State v. Perry

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 21, 1936 · PER CURIAM.

265 N.W. 302; 196 Minn. 481; 1936 Minn. LEXIS 993 (North Western Reporter)

Counsel

John. A. Goldie , for appellants. R.S. Wiggin , City Attorney, and Leo P. McHale , Assistant City Attorney, for the State.

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 2017, 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

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Nora Garcia v. William Gray (10th Cir. 1974)
State v. Cooper (Minn. 1939)
State v. Janecek (Minn. Ct. App. 2017)
State v. Schuller (Md. 1977)
Annenberg v. SOUTHERN CAL. DIST. COUNCIL (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)
Annenberg v. Southern California District Council of Laborers (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)
State v. Miller (Minn. 1958)
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Baldwin (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1946)
State v. Anonymous (1971-2) (Conn. App. Ct. 1970)
Petrucci v. Hogan (New York Supreme Court 1941)

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

Per Curiam.

The defendants were found guilty of disorderly conduct in violation of the same city ordinance of Minneapolis involved in the case of State v. Zanker, 179 Minn. 355, 229 N. W. 311. Though not employes of the Flour City Ornamental Iron Company, against Avhich a strike had been declared, the defendants were engaged in picketing the residence of A. G. Gustafson, foreman of that company. One of the banners carried was inscribed, “A scab lives here,” another, “We want a living wage.” Neighbors gathered to witness the picketing, and the wife of Gustafson protested against it and turned a hose on the picketeers. The police were summoned and arrested the defendants as they were getting away in the car which brought them. Defendant Christopherson drove the car and waited for the other defendants while they engaged in the picketing and drove them away.

*482 The case is controlled by State v. Zanker, 179 Minn. 355, 229 N. W. 311. The conduct of the defendants in carrying the banner back and forth in front of Gustafson’s house with the opprobrious charge that a scab lived there ivas calculated to cause and did cause a breach of the peace. This, as said in the Zanker case, is the primary element of disorderly conduct. This court said in that case [179 Minn. 357]:

“Conduct is disorderly in the ordinary sense when it is of such nature as to affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness the same and who may be disturbed or provoked to resentment thereby.”

As in the Zanker case, no question is here involved of the right of the strikers to be free from injunction. Nor is there any question relating to industrial conflicts between capital and labor. Defendants were endeavoring to carry into the home and domestic life of Gustafson an industrial controversy which should have been left elsewhere. This is no doubt the kind of picketing which led England to prohibit it. 19 Halsbury’s Comp. St. of Eng. p. 746 (Trade Disputes & Trade Unions Act, 1927).

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.