Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Burns v. Essling, 194 N.W. 404.

23 citing documents.

Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 270 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1978
Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 270 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1978
Plaintiff argues, however, that this case should be controlled by Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171 , 194 N.W.
R. E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis 269 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1978
R. E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis 269 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1978
814 (1937); Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171 , 194 N.W.
City of Pipestone v. Madsen 178 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1970
City of Pipestone v. Madsen 178 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1970
It is equally well settled that, if the primary object is to promote some private end, the expenditure is illegal, although’ it may incidentally serve some public purpose also.” Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171, 174 , ; Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177 , 89 N. W. (2d) 635 .
McCarty v. City of St. Paul 155 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1967
McCarty v. City of St. Paul 155 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1967
3 In Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171 , , the court granted an injunction preventing the city from expending the city’s money for non-municipal purposes.
PORT AUTHORITY OF CITY OF ST. PAUL v. Fisher 132 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1964
PORT AUTHORITY OF CITY OF ST. PAUL v. Fisher 132 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1964
5 See, Arens v. Village of Rogers, 240 Minn. 386 , 61 N. W. (2d) 508 ; Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171 , ; Castner v. City of Minneapolis, 92 Minn. 84 , .
Chun King Sales, Inc. v. County of St. Louis 98 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 1959
John Wright & Associates, Inc. v. City of Red Wing 97 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 1959
Visina v. Freeman 89 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1958
Visina v. Freeman 89 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1958
The rule is clearly stated in Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171, 174 , , as follows: “* * * if the primary object of an expenditure of municipal funds is to subserve a public purpose, the expenditure is legal, although it may also involve as an incident an expenditure which, standing alone, *185 would not be lawful.
Arens v. Village of Rogers 61 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 1953
Arens v. Village of Rogers 61 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 1953
Behrens v. City of Minneapolis, 199 Minn. 363 , ; Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171 , ; Castner v. City of Minneapolis, supra.
Behrens v. City of Minneapolis 271 N.W. 814 Minn. 1937
Behrens v. City of Minneapolis 271 N.W. 814 Minn. 1937
934; Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171 , .
State Ex Rel. Benson v. Stanley 247 N.W. 509 Minn. 1933
State Ex Rel. Benson v. Stanley 247 N.W. 509 Minn. 1933
of Polk County, 87 Minn. 325 , , 60 L. R. A. 161; Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
State Ex Rel. Benson v. Erickson 239 N.W. 908 Minn. 1931
Booth v. City of Minneapolis 203 N.W. 625 Minn. 1925
Booth v. City of Minneapolis 203 N.W. 625 Minn. 1925
*226 A public golf course does not come within the prohibitions of Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171 , , which disapproved the spending of public money for a hockey rink in which a closely allied athletic association could “stage hockey games between a team whose salaries and expenses * * * were to be paid largely by the city * * * and other teams” and an admission would be charged spectators.