State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Marie Hansen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that a permanent injunction requires, inter alia, a showing of irreparable harm
• stating that permanent injunctive relief requires actual success on the merits
• contrasting “[p]assing criticisms” with “passionate harangues” by reference to “the intensity of a speaker’s expression”
• finding that “indicators of [quid pro quo] corruption or its appearance” occurred, “when donors ma[d]e large contributions because they ha[d] business with the [c]ity, hope[d] to do business with the [c]ity, or [we]re expending money on behalf of others who do business with the [c]ity”
• considering newspaper articles, “along with ‘legislative facts,’” in determining whether “a reasonable person would believe that corruption or the potential for corruption exists,” not whether public corruption actually existed
• identifying as two interests that could justify contribution limitations: (1) an anti‐corruption interest in avoiding quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of quid pro quo corruption; and (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).