Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Grant v. Berrisford, 101 N.W. 940.

46 citing documents.

Gadey v. City of Minneapolis 517 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Gadey v. City of Minneapolis 517 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Charter provisions will be given effect even where they “differ in details from those of existing general laws.” Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45, 48 , 101 N.W.
A. C. E. Equipment Co. v. Erickson 152 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1967
A. C. E. Equipment Co. v. Erickson 152 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1967
Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , ; Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , ; State ex rel.
Elk River Concrete Products Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading 129 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1964
Elk River Concrete Products Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading 129 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1964
Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45, 49 , 1133 .” 1A Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure (Rules ed.) § 304, p. 231: “* * * [T]he pleader must allege such compliance [with conditions precedent] or that performance * * * was waived * * *, though the omission of allegations showing performance or occurrence of conditions
State Ex Rel. Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston 91 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1958
State Ex Rel. Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston 91 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1958
Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , ; Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , ; State ex rel.
Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager 294 N.W. 210 Minn. 1940
Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager 294 N.W. 210 Minn. 1940
Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45, 49 , .
Guaranteed Concrete Co. Inc. v. Garrick. Bros. Inc. 241 N.W. 588 Minn. 1932
Guaranteed Concrete Co. Inc. v. Garrick. Bros. Inc. 241 N.W. 588 Minn. 1932
In Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , , it was held that the- *456 subject of contractors’ bonds to secure the performance of public contracts was germane to municipal legislation; and that the charter of St.
Rand Kardex Service Corp. v. Forrestal 219 N.W. 943 Minn. 1928
Rand Kardex Service Corp. v. Forrestal 219 N.W. 943 Minn. 1928
Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , , sustains the proposition that the ordinance mentioned is a proper *582 exercise of legislative power of the council, authorized by the charter to regulate the letting of contracts.
In Re Assessment for Paving Minnehaha Street 212 N.W. 811 Minn. 1927
In Re Assessment for Paving Minnehaha Street 212 N.W. 811 Minn. 1927
In considering the contention that home rule charters must be similar to the general laws of the state, the court in Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , , said: “But it does not forbid the adoption of charter provisions as to any subject appropriate to the orderly conduct of municipal affairs, although they may differ in details from those of existing general laws.
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Duluth 189 N.W. 937 Minn. 1922
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Duluth 189 N.W. 937 Minn. 1922
Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , ; Hjelm v. City of St.
Markley v. City of St. Paul 172 N.W. 215 Minn. 1919
Markley v. City of St. Paul 172 N.W. 215 Minn. 1919
Louis County, 90 Minn. 457 , ; State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 87 Minn. 146 , *358 ; Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , ; State v. Robinson, 101 Minn. 277 , , 30 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Park v. City of Duluth 159 N.W. 627 Minn. 1916
Park v. City of Duluth 159 N.W. 627 Minn. 1916
581; Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , .
Standard Salt & Cement Co. v. National Surety Co. 158 N.W. 802 Minn. 1916
Standard Salt & Cement Co. v. National Surety Co. 158 N.W. 802 Minn. 1916
Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , , involved the St.
State ex rel. Smith v. City of International Falls 156 N.W. 249 Minn. 1916
State ex rel. Smith v. City of International Falls 156 N.W. 249 Minn. 1916
state defining or punishing crimes or misdemeanors.” Charters adopted under this constitutional provision have been before this court frequently, and it has uniformly been held that such charters “may embrace all appropriate subjects of municipal legislation, and constitute an effective municipal code, of equal force, as a charter granted by a direct act of the legislature.” Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , .
Hjelm v. City of St. Cloud 152 N.W. 408 Minn. 1915
Hjelm v. City of St. Cloud 152 N.W. 408 Minn. 1915
Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , ; Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , ; Schigley v. City of Waseca, 106 Minn. 94 , , 19 L.R.A.
Farmers Co-Operative Elevator Co. v. Enge 142 N.W. 328 Minn. 1913
Farmers Co-Operative Elevator Co. v. Enge 142 N.W. 328 Minn. 1913
The case is wholly unlike Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , .
City of Duluth v. Orr 132 N.W. 265 Minn. 1911
City of Duluth v. Orr 132 N.W. 265 Minn. 1911
In Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , , it is stated that the constitutional amendment permitting cities to make their own charters “fairly implies that the charter adopted by the citizens of a city may embrace all appropriate subjects of municipal legislation and constitute an effective municipal code of eqtial force as a charter gr
Thune v. Hetland 131 N.W. 372 Minn. 1911
Thune v. Hetland 131 N.W. 372 Minn. 1911
Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , .
Waterous Engine Works Co. v. Village of Clinton 125 N.W. 269 Minn. 1910
Waterous Engine Works Co. v. Village of Clinton 125 N.W. 269 Minn. 1910
Paul v. Butler, 30 Minn. 459 , *275 ; Morton v. Power, 33 Minn. 521 , ; State Bank of Duluth v. Heney, 40 Minn. 145 , ; Tompkins v. Forrestal, 54 Minn. 119 , ; Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , ; Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L.R.A.
Schigley v. City of Waseca 118 N.W. 259 Minn. 1908
Schigley v. City of Waseca 118 N.W. 259 Minn. 1908
aims to the city council for adjustment ánd allowance was a proper subject for charter supervision; and “it would seem to follow logically that it was also proper to continue the subject, and provide the manner in which the determination of the city council allowing or disallowing a claim might be removed to the district court for judicial investigation and determination.” In Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , , it was held that the subject of contractors’ bonds to secure the performance of cont
State ex rel. Latshaw v. Board of Water & Light Commissioners 117 N.W. 827 Minn. 1908
State ex rel. Latshaw v. Board of Water & Light Commissioners 117 N.W. 827 Minn. 1908
458, 471 , 41 S. W. 943 ; Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , ; City of East Grand Forks v. Luck, 97 Minn. 373 , , 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 198; Turner v. Snyder, 101 Minn. 481 , ; American Electric Co. v. City of Waseca, 102 Minn. 329 , ; Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , 1
American Electric Co. v. City of Waseca 113 N.W. 899 Minn. 1907
American Electric Co. v. City of Waseca 113 N.W. 899 Minn. 1907
Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , ; Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , ; Turner v. Snyder, 101 Minn. 481 , .
Turner v. Snyder 112 N.W. 868 Minn. 1907
Turner v. Snyder 112 N.W. 868 Minn. 1907
In the case of Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , , it was held that the constitutional amendment which authorizes cities-to frame their- own charters does not forbid the adoption of charter provisions as to any subject appropriate to the orderly conduct of municipal affairs, although they may differ in detail with those of existing general laws
Peterson v. City of Red Wing 111 N.W. 840 Minn. 1907
Peterson v. City of Red Wing 111 N.W. 840 Minn. 1907
Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , .