Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Furlong v. McColl, 149 N.W. 11.

26 citing documents.

Willis v. County of Sherburne 555 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1996
Willis v. County of Sherburne 555 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1996
Furlong v. McColl, 127 Minn. [155] at 160, [(1914)]; State ex rel.
Dietz v. Dodge County 487 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1992
Dietz v. Dodge County 487 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1992
Furlong v. McColl, 127 Minn. at 160, ; State ex rel.
Town of Bridgie v. County of Koochiching 35 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1948
Town of Bridgie v. County of Koochiching 35 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1948
: “The power of the legislature to delegate a part of its legislative functions to municipal corporations or other governmental subdivisions, boards, commissions, and tribunals, to be exercised within their respective jurisdictions, cannot be denied; but the recipient of such powers must be members of the same governmental department as that of the grantor.” In the Wright case this court stated ( 127 Minn. 155 , ): “The claim is made that the law is unconstitutional because it delegates legislat
Moskovitz v. City of St. Paul 16 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1944
Moskovitz v. City of St. Paul 16 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1944
Furlong v. McColl, 127 Minn. 155, 158 , , this court applied the same test in determining whether a provision of the St.
State Ex Rel. Carstater v. Civil Service Board 10 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1943
State Ex Rel. Carstater v. Civil Service Board 10 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1943
Furlong v. McColl, 127 Minn. 155, 162 , ; State ex rel.
Oikari v. Independent School District No. 40 212 N.W. 598 Minn. 1927
Oikari v. Independent School District No. 40 212 N.W. 598 Minn. 1927
Furlong v. McColl, 127 Minn. 155 , ; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Holland v. Sudheimer 205 N.W. 369 Minn. 1925
State Ex Rel. Holland v. Sudheimer 205 N.W. 369 Minn. 1925
State v. McColl, 127 Minn. 155 , ; State v. Wunderlich, 144 Minn. 368 , .
State ex rel. Early v. Wunderlich 175 N.W. 677 Minn. 1920
State ex rel. Early v. Wunderlich 175 N.W. 677 Minn. 1920
The provisions of this same charter in respect to the removal of policemen were under consideration in State v. McColl, 127 Minn. 155 , , and the court said: “New York has for many years had a statute containing similar provisions for removal of subordinate municipal officers and employees.
State ex rel. Grubbs v. Schulz 171 N.W. 263 Minn. 1919
State ex rel. Grubbs v. Schulz 171 N.W. 263 Minn. 1919
Sykes v. City of Minneapolis, 124 Minn. 73, 77 , ; State v. McColl, 127 Minn. 155, 158 , .
State ex rel. Martin v. City of Minneapolis 164 N.W. 806 Minn. 1917
Distinguished State ex rel. Martin v. City of Minneapolis 164 N.W. 806 Minn. 1917
The case of State v. McColl, 127 Minn. 155 , , is clearly distinguishable.
Byrne v. City of St. Paul 163 N.W. 162 Minn. 1917
Byrne v. City of St. Paul 163 N.W. 162 Minn. 1917
State v. McColl, 127 Minn. 155 , ; and Sclawr v. City of St.
State ex rel. Brown v. Board of Public Works 158 N.W. 977 Minn. 1916
State ex rel. Brown v. Board of Public Works 158 N.W. 977 Minn. 1916
State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , ; State v. Posz, 106 Minn. 197 , ; State v. County Board of Wright County, 126 Minn. 209 , ; State v. McColl, 127 Minn. 155, 160 , .
Sclawr v. City of St. Paul 156 N.W. 283 Minn. 1916
Sclawr v. City of St. Paul 156 N.W. 283 Minn. 1916
Paul, 83 Minn. 473 , 86 N W. 459, and State v. McColl, 127 Minn. 155 , .