Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Lachtman v. Houghton, 158 N.W. 1017.

42 citing documents.

Cup Foods, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“[W]hen the legislative power attempts to forbid the owner from making a use of his property which is not harmful to the public and does not interfere with the r ightful use and enjoyment of their own property by others, it invades property rights secured to the owner by both the state and fede
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Lachtman v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226, 230 , 158 N.W.
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale 588 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale 588 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Lachtman v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226, 237 , 158 N.W.
Smith v. City of Owatonna 450 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1990
Johnson v. City of Plymouth 263 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 1978
Johnson v. City of Plymouth 263 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 1978
Lachtman v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226, 230 , 158 N.W.
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minnesota, Inc. v. Village of Minnetonka 162 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1968
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minnesota, Inc. v. Village of Minnetonka 162 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1968
Lachtman v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , , L. R. A. 1917F, 1050.
Hendrickson v. State 127 N.W.2d 165 Minn. 1964
Hendrickson v. State 127 N.W.2d 165 Minn. 1964
Lachtman v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226, 230 , , L. R. A. 1917F, 1050.
Pearce v. Village of Edina 118 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 1962
Pearce v. Village of Edina 118 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 1962
Lachtman v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , , L. R. A. 1917F, 1050; Jefferson County v. Timmel, 261 Wis.
Olsen v. City of Minneapolis 115 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1962
Olsen v. City of Minneapolis 115 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1962
Lachtman v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , , L. R. A. 1917F, 1050; Jefferson County v. Timmel, 261 Wis.
State v. Clarke Plumbing & Heating, Inc. 56 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1952
State v. Clarke Plumbing & Heating, Inc. 56 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1952
Lachtman v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , 158 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Olson v. Guilford 219 N.W. 770 Minn. 1928
State Ex Rel. Olson v. Guilford 219 N.W. 770 Minn. 1928
Lachtman v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , , L. R. A. 1917F, 1050; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
State Ex Rel. v. Houghton 204 N.W. 569 Minn. 1925
State ex rel. Beery v. Houghton 204 N.W. 569 Minn. 1925
State Ex Rel. v. Houghton 204 N.W. 569 Minn. 1925
In State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , 158 N.W.
State ex rel. Beery v. Houghton 204 N.W. 569 Minn. 1925
In State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , , L. R. A. 1917F, 1050, it was held by a divided court, that an ordinance of Minneapolis prohibiting the erection of a store within a residential district was not a legitimate exercise of the police power under G. S. 1913, §§ 1581-1585; G. S. 1923, §§ 1569-1574.
Schultz v. City of Duluth 203 N.W. 449 Minn. 1925
Schultz v. City of Duluth 203 N.W. 449 Minn. 1925
It does not regulate or interfere with business conducted upon private property within the city as was the case in State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , , L. R. A. 1917F, 1050; City of Virginia v. Erickson, 141 Minn. 21 , .
Grisim v. South St. Paul Live Stock Exchange 188 N.W. 729 Minn. 1922
Grisim v. South St. Paul Live Stock Exchange 188 N.W. 729 Minn. 1922
681; State v. Ryder, 126 Minn. 95 , , 5 A. L. R. 1449; State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , , L. R. A. 1917F, 1050; Williams v. Evans, 139 Minn. 32 , , , L. R. A. 1918F, 542.
City of St. Paul v. Kessler 178 N.W. 171 Minn. 1920
City of St. Paul v. Kessler 178 N.W. 171 Minn. 1920
occupation, or business, the unrestrained pursuit of which might affect injuriously the public health, morals, safety, or comfort, and in the exercise of this power, particular occupations may be excluded from certain parts of the city, or may be required to be conducted within designated limits.” And under the general welfare clause, common to all city charters, it was held in State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 .
Vorlander v. Hokenson 175 N.W. 995 Minn. 1920
Vorlander v. Hokenson 175 N.W. 995 Minn. 1920
The facts bring this case within the rule stated and applied in State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , , and State v. City of Minneapolis, 136 Minn. 479 , .
Roerig v. Houghton 175 N.W. 542 Minn. 1919
Roerig v. Houghton 175 N.W. 542 Minn. 1919
State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , , L.R.A.
State ex rel. Twin City Building & Investment Co. v. Houghton 174 N.W. 885 Minn. 1919
State ex rel. Twin City Building & Investment Co. v. Houghton 174 N.W. 885 Minn. 1919
State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , , L.R.A.
State ex rel. Banner Grain Co. v. Houghton 170 N.W. 853 Minn. 1919
State ex rel. Banner Grain Co. v. Houghton 170 N.W. 853 Minn. 1919
This ordinance was considered and discussed in State v. City of Minneapolis, 136 Minn. 479 , ; State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , , L.R.A.
Meyers v. Houghton 163 N.W. 754 Minn. 1917
Meyers v. Houghton 163 N.W. 754 Minn. 1917
The general subject had exhaustive consideration in State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , 158 N. W, 1017.
State ex rel. Roerig v. City of Minneapolis 162 N.W. 477 Minn. 1917
State ex rel. Roerig v. City of Minneapolis 162 N.W. 477 Minn. 1917
This court recently held, in State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226 , , that “prohibiting the owner from erecting a store building upon land within a residential district” is beyond the police power and therefore void.