Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Park v. City of Duluth, 159 N.W. 627.

57 citing documents.

Tyler Vasseur v. City of Minneapolis, Ginny Gelms, in her official capacity as Elections Manager, Hennepin County 887 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 2016
Tyler Vasseur v. City of Minneapolis, Ginny Gelms, in her official capacity as Elections Manager, Hennepin County 887 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 2016
See Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296, 298, 159 N.W.
In Re the Disposition of Molly 712 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Disposition of Molly 712 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Whidby, 295 Minn. 129, 136 , Park, 134 Minn. 296, 298 , 159 N.W.
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
Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296, 298-99 , 159 N.W.
City of St. Paul v. Whidby 203 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1972
City of St. Paul v. Whidby 203 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1972
Their legislative authority is conferred upon them by the constitution and the laws of the state, and, “as to matters of municipal concern they have all the legislative power possessed by the legislature of the state, save as such power is expressly or impliedly withheld.” Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296, 298
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.
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.
City of Duluth v. Northland Greyhound Lines 52 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1952
City of Duluth v. Northland Greyhound Lines 52 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1952
Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , .
Mitchell v. City of St. Paul 36 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1949
Mitchell v. City of St. Paul 36 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1949
Paul v. Oehler, 218 Minn. 290 , 16 N. W. (2d) 765 ; Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.
City of Duluth v. Cerveny 16 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1944
City of Duluth v. Cerveny 16 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1944
In Park v. City of Duluth, 131 Minn. 296, 298 , , this court said: “* * * The people of a city in adopting a charter have not power to legislate upon all subjects, but as to matters of municipal concern they have all the legislative power possessed by the legislature of the state, save as such power is expressly or impliedly withheld.” *516 See, also, State ex
State Ex Rel. City of St. Paul v. Oehler 16 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1944
State Ex Rel. City of St. Paul v. Oehler 16 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1944
Thus, in Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , 298 , 159 N.W.
State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. Oehler 15 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1944
State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. Oehler 15 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1944
Thus, in Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296, 298 , , where the issue was whether the city possessed the power to levy a wheelage tax upon vehicles using its streets, the proceeds of which were to be used for the maintenance and repair of its highways, this court said: “* * * Duluth operates under a home rule charter.
State v. Pehrson 287 N.W. 313 Minn. 1939
State v. Pehrson 287 N.W. 313 Minn. 1939
Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , .
State v. Hughes 233 N.W. 874 Minn. 1930
Granger v. City of Minneapolis 233 N.W. 821 Minn. 1930
Granger v. City of Minneapolis 233 N.W. 821 Minn. 1930
We had a similar problem in Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , .
State v. Hughes 233 N.W. 874 Minn. 1930
r pass any ordinance, rule or regulation limiting or restricting the speed of motor vehicles, and no ordinance, rule or regulation heretofore or hereafter made by any city, town, village or other municipality in respect of or limiting the use or speed of motor vehicles shall have any force, effect or validity * * *.” The scope and meaning of this provision were declared in Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , ; Bruce v. Ryan, 138 Minn. 264 , ; State v. Mandehr, 168 Minn. 139 , .
Board of Education v. Houghton 233 N.W. 834 Minn. 1930
Board of Education v. Houghton 233 N.W. 834 Minn. 1930
105 Minn. 472 , , 127 A. S. R. 581; Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , .
Phelps v. City of Minneapolis 219 N.W. 872 Minn. 1928
Phelps v. City of Minneapolis 219 N.W. 872 Minn. 1928
Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , ; Dohs v. Holm, 152 Minn. 529, 533 , .
State v. Lefebvre 219 N.W. 167 Minn. 1928
State v. Lefebvre 219 N.W. 167 Minn. 1928
Cloud, 155 Minn. 463 , ; Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , .
State v. Mandehr 209 N.W. 750 Minn. 1926
State v. Mandehr 209 N.W. 750 Minn. 1926
This court has twice used language opposed to a construction of the act which would practically eliminate the word “use.” In Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , , the court said: “What this section [Sec.
McReavy v. Holm 206 N.W. 942 Minn. 1926
McReavy v. Holm 206 N.W. 942 Minn. 1926
Cloud, 155 Minn. 463 , ; Dohs v. Holm, 152 Minn. 529 , ; Park v. Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , .
State v. Peterson 198 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1924
State v. Peterson 198 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1924
1916B, 189; Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , .
State ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. Erickson 195 N.W. 919 Minn. 1923
State ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. Erickson 195 N.W. 919 Minn. 1923
Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , .
State ex rel. Hilton v. Essling 195 N.W. 539 Minn. 1923
State ex rel. Hilton v. Essling 195 N.W. 539 Minn. 1923
ch board of freeholders may also provide for the re-call of any elective municipal officer and for his removal by vote of the electors of such city.” In adopting the charter of Eveleth, the people had all the legislative power possessed by the legislature of the state with respect to every matter of municipal concern, save as such power was expressly or impliedly withheld, Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , , and the charter had all the force and effect of a legislative enactment.
Jefferson Highway Transportation Co. v. City of St. Cloud 193 N.W. 960 Minn. 1923
Jefferson Highway Transportation Co. v. City of St. Cloud 193 N.W. 960 Minn. 1923
Tbis justified placing business trucks in a different class from other cars in Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , .
State ex rel. Andrews v. Beach 191 N.W. 1012 Minn. 1923
State ex rel. Andrews v. Beach 191 N.W. 1012 Minn. 1923
In passing on the proposed amendments the people of Mankato “have all the legislative power possessed by the legislature of the state save as such power is expressly or impliedly withheld.” Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296 , .
Dohs v. Holm 189 N.W. 418 Minn. 1922
Fairley v. City of Duluth 185 N.W. 390 Minn. 1921