Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Getchell v. O'connor, 83 N.W. 498.

30 citing documents.

County of Hennepin v. City of Hopkins 58 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 1953
County of Hennepin v. City of Hopkins 58 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 1953
Getchell v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79 , ; Loper v. State, 82 Minn. 71 , ; State v. N. W. Tel.
State ex rel. Mathews v. Houdersheldt 186 N.W. 234 Minn. 1922
State ex rel. Mathews v. Houdersheldt 186 N.W. 234 Minn. 1922
State v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79 , ; State v. Brown, 97 Minn. 402 , , 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 327.
Markley v. City of St. Paul 172 N.W. 215 Minn. 1919
Markley v. City of St. Paul 172 N.W. 215 Minn. 1919
State v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79 , ; State v. District Court of St.
Smith ex rel. Smith v. City of St. Paul 150 N.W. 389 Minn. 1914
Smith ex rel. Smith v. City of St. Paul 150 N.W. 389 Minn. 1914
111), and the occasion for and conditions leading' to its adoption are well stated in State v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79 ; , the present Chief Justice saying at pages 83, 84: “By a constitutional amendment in 1891, special legislation as to cities and villages was wholly prohibited.
City of Duluth v. Orr 132 N.W. 265 Minn. 1911
City of Duluth v. Orr 132 N.W. 265 Minn. 1911
Louis County, 90 Minn. 457 , ; State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 87 Minn. 146 , ; State v. O'Connor, 81 Minn. 79 , .
State v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co. 120 N.W. 534 Minn. 1909
State v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co. 120 N.W. 534 Minn. 1909
State v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79 , ; Loper v. State, 82 Minn. 71 , ; Robinson v. U. S., 42 Ct. Cl.
Schigley v. City of Waseca 118 N.W. 259 Minn. 1908
Schigley v. City of Waseca 118 N.W. 259 Minn. 1908
In State v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79 , , and State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 87 Minn. 146 , , it was held that- the constitutional provisions contemplated that the legislature should prescribe limits within which such charters may be framed; that is, prescribe limits beyond which a charter may not go.
State v. Twin City Telephone Co. 116 N.W. 835 Minn. 1908
State v. Twin City Telephone Co. 116 N.W. 835 Minn. 1908
State v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79 , ; O’Connor v. Gertgens, 85 Minn. 495 , .
Grant v. Berrisford 101 N.W. 940 Minn. 1904
Grant v. Berrisford 101 N.W. 940 Minn. 1904
State v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79 , ; State v. District Court of Ramsey Co., 87 Minn. 146 , ; State v. District Court of St.
Townsend v. Underwood's Second Addition 97 N.W. 977 Minn. 1904
Townsend v. Underwood's Second Addition 97 N.W. 977 Minn. 1904
v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79 , .
State ex rel. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. District Court 97 N.W. 132 Minn. 1903
State ex rel. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. District Court 97 N.W. 132 Minn. 1903
It was held in State v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79 , , that the power and authority conferred by the Constitution upon cities to frame their own charters extend to all subjects and matters properly belonging to the government of municipalities; and this must necessarily include any subject apprbpriate to the orderly conduct of *461 municipal affairs.
Beck v. City of St. Paul 92 N.W. 328 Minn. 1902
Beck v. City of St. Paul 92 N.W. 328 Minn. 1902
ed, shall not thereby be made to exceed five per cent, of the total value of the taxable property of such city, according to the last preceding assessment for the purposes of taxation.” This act was passed to give effective force to the constitutional amendment of 1898 authorizing the formation of charters by the voters of municipalities in this state which we have sustained in State v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79, 80 , , and State v. District Court of Ramsey Co., supra, page 146.
State ex rel. Ryan v. District Court of Ramsey County 91 N.W. 300 Minn. 1902
State ex rel. Ryan v. District Court of Ramsey County 91 N.W. 300 Minn. 1902
State v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79 , .
State ex rel. Freeman v. Zimmerman 90 N.W. 783 Minn. 1902
State ex rel. Freeman v. Zimmerman 90 N.W. 783 Minn. 1902
Such a department very properly belongs and is incident to the government of municipalities (State v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79 , ), and the provisions of the charter, of which we are required to take judicial notice (Laws 1899, c. 351), have all the force and effect of legislative enactments.
Loper v. State 84 N.W. 650 Minn. 1900
Loper v. State 84 N.W. 650 Minn. 1900
211, 215 , ; Grimes v. Byrne, 2 Minn. 72 (89); City of Winona v. Whipple, 24 Minn. 61 ; State v. Small, 29 Minn. 216 , ; State v. O’Connor, 81 Minn. 79 , .