Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dirnberger, 187 N.W. 972.

40 citing documents.

Ukkonen v. Gustafson 244 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1976
Ukkonen v. Gustafson 244 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1976
In State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44, 47 , , it was considered that the decision in Fischer v. City of St.
State v. Morse 161 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1968
State v. Morse 161 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1968
We followed this rule in the Prokosch case, notwithstanding counsel’s suggestion “that the rule is a harsh one and should not be too liberally applied.” 152 Minn. 89 , .
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
State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , 187 N.W.
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
State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , .
State v. Northwest Linseed Co. 297 N.W. 635 Minn. 1941
State v. Northwest Linseed Co. 297 N.W. 635 Minn. 1941
State v. Bjork, 157 Minn. 276 , ; State v. Rosenstein, 148 Minn. 127 , ; State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , ; State v. Amor & Co. 153 Minn. 244 , ; Meyers v. City of Minneapolis, 154 Minn. 238 , , ; State ex rel.
State v. Pehrson 287 N.W. 313 Minn. 1939
State v. Pehrson 287 N.W. 313 Minn. 1939
State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , .
State Ex Rel. Remick v. Clousing 285 N.W. 711 Minn. 1939
State Ex Rel. Remick v. Clousing 285 N.W. 711 Minn. 1939
Thus in State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , , it was held that an ordinance of the city of Minneapolis providing that no person shall operate a laundry without first obtaining a permit from the council was within the charter-granted powers of the city.
Sverkerson v. City of Minneapolis 283 N.W. 555 Minn. 1939
Sverkerson v. City of Minneapolis 283 N.W. 555 Minn. 1939
State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , (the right of the city of Minneapolis to license laundries sustained under the general welfare clause although the charter did not grant specifically the power to regulate laundries); Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 175 Minn. 276 , (this same clause held to justify licensing of gas
State v. Gunderson 268 N.W. 850 Minn. 1936
State v. Gunderson 268 N.W. 850 Minn. 1936
Compare State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , ; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Rose Brothers Lumber & Supply Co. v. Clousing 268 N.W. 844 Minn. 1936
State Ex Rel. Rose Brothers Lumber & Supply Co. v. Clousing 268 N.W. 844 Minn. 1936
In State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44, 47 , , this precise question was presented.
Tousley v. Leach 230 N.W. 788 Minn. 1930
Tousley v. Leach 230 N.W. 788 Minn. 1930
Commencing with State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , , there is a clearly noted departure in the direction of a less restricted rule; and now legislation not authorized in specific terms but in direct and necessary aid of a specific grant is sustained.
State v. Morrow 221 N.W. 423 Minn. 1928
State v. Morrow 221 N.W. 423 Minn. 1928
In State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44, 47 , , it was considered that the decision in Fischer v. City •of St.
Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis 221 N.W. 6 Minn. 1928
Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis 221 N.W. 6 Minn. 1928
In State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , , it was held, upon mature consideration, that a city might designate the location of laundries under the general welfare clause without specially conferred charter authority.
State v. Lindquist 214 N.W. 260 Minn. 1927
State v. Lindquist 214 N.W. 260 Minn. 1927
Minces v. Schoenig, 72 Minn. 528 , (conductors of gift, fire and bankrupt sales); State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , State v. Amor & Co. 153 Minn. 244 , Meyers v. City of Minneapolis, 154 Minn. 238
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
107 (lumber yard); State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , 187 N.W.
State ex rel. Beery v. Houghton 204 N.W. 569 Minn. 1925
State v. Amor & Co. 153 Minn. 244 , State v. Rosenstein, 148 Minn. 127 , State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , State v. Bjork, 157 Minn. 276 , and our line of recent cases involving the operation of a stone quarry.
State v. Pocock 201 N.W. 610 Minn. 1925
State v. Pocock 201 N.W. 610 Minn. 1925
Co. 142 Minn. 376 , ; State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , ; State ex rel.
State v. Bjork 195 N.W. 926 Minn. 1923
State v. Bjork 195 N.W. 926 Minn. 1923
The contention that the ordinance is void, because it is too general and does not define the conditions of the localities where such lawful occupations as the manufacture of stone monuments may be carried on, but leaves this to the discretion of the city council to determine in each case, is sufficiently answered by the late decisions in State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , ; State v. Amor & Co. 153 Minn. 244 , ; and Meyers v. City of Minneapolis, 154 Minn. 238 , .
State v. Amor & Co. 190 N.W. 59 Minn. 1922
State v. Amor & Co. 190 N.W. 59 Minn. 1922
This contention' was determined adversely to defendant in State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , .
Meyers v. City of Minneapolis 189 N.W. 709 Minn. 1922
Meyers v. City of Minneapolis 189 N.W. 709 Minn. 1922
State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44 , .