State v. Miller
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 1999, 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
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Scholberg (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- State v. Wicklund (Minn. 1999)
- Sutherland v. Southcenter Shopping Center, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 1970)
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
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Jeffrey MILLER and Kenneth Sachs, Appellants.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
*896 John S. Connolly, St. Paul, for appellants; Lynn Castner, Minneapolis, Civil Liberties Union, of counsel.
Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., and Joseph P. Summers, City Atty., Daniel Klas, Thomas M. Mooney, Asst. City Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Defendants were convicted of trespassing on the private property of another in violation of Minn.St. 609.605, a misdemeanor. The evidence established that defendants entered the Midway Shopping Center, located at University and Snelling Avenues in the city of St. Paul, on October 12, 1966, for the purpose of distributing a pamphlet or tract on behalf of the candidacy of certain persons on the ticket of the Industrial Government Party in Minnesota. The shopping center has many diverse business concerns on its premises and is open generally to the public.
On May 20, 1968, the case of Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 390 U.S. ___, 88 S.Ct. 1601, 19 L.Ed.2d 818, was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision is controlling over the facts involved in the case now before us. On the basis thereof the convictions must be reversed.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.