“To avoid interfering with first amendment rights, this statute should not be used to combat rudeness or for social engineering.” Id. at 43. But a defendant’s words are considered as a “package” in combination with conduct and physical movements, viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances. Id.; see, e.g., City of Little Falls v. Witucki, 295 N.W.2d 243, 246 (Minn.1980). “For a person to be guilty of disorderly conduct the public or some member thereof must be disturbed.” State v. Reynolds, 243 Minn. 196, 199, 66 N.W.2d 886, 889 (1954). Although the court in S.L.J. found that adjudication of delinquency invalid as a matter of law, later cases have treated the question of whether language amounts to fighting words as one of fact. See, e.g., Wi-tucki, 295 N.W.2d at 245 (<HOLDING>). We interpret the standard of review
holding in a securities fraud action that a court may only find the lack of materiality where a jury could not reasonably find materiality holding at summary judgment that the plaintiff had to show a reasonable jury could find the defendants allegedly anticompetitive conduct was a material cause of plaintiffs injury holding that a reasonable trier of fact could find that the defendants acted with malice holding that to find negligence jury need not find violation of federal motorcarrier regulation holding that jury could find defendants language inherently likely to provoke violence under circumstances