Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Morrow, 221 N.W. 423.

25 citing documents.

Zeman v. City of Minneapolis 540 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Zeman v. City of Minneapolis 540 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Morrow, 175 Minn. 386, 388 , 221 N.W.
Ukkonen v. Gustafson 244 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1976
Ukkonen v. Gustafson 244 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1976
City Council in State v. Morrow, 175 Minn. 386, 387 , we concluded: “* * * Such a general welfare clause as that found in the charter of Minneapolis is intended to make the powers of the council, sufficiently expansive to enable them to meet and provide for new conditions as they arise.” *265 Significantly, in Morrow we proceeded to state ( 17
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield 143 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1966
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield 143 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1966
Remick v. Clousing, 205 Minn. 296 , , 123 A. L. R. 465; State v. *358 Morrow, 175 Minn. 386 , ; Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 175 Minn. 276 , .
Minnetonka Electric Co. v. Village of Golden Valley 141 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1966
Distinguished Minnetonka Electric Co. v. Village of Golden Valley 141 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1966
We went on to say in the *305 Remick case that the general-welfare clause in the charter was not limited to the things enumerated and that it authorized the regulation and licensing of businesses not specifically referred to in the charter, citing State v. Morrow, 175 Minn. 386 , , and Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 175 Minn. 276 , .
Borchert v. Village of North Oaks 117 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1962
Borchert v. Village of North Oaks 117 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1962
Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 175 Minn. *37 276, ; State v. Morrow, 175 Minn. 386 , ; State v. United Parking Stations, Inc. 235 Minn. 147 , 50 N. W. (2d) 50 .
Village of Brooklyn Center v. Rippen 96 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1959
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
711 ; State v. Morrow, 175 Minn. 386 , 221 N.W.
State v. United Parking Stations, Inc. 50 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1951
State v. United Parking Stations, Inc. 50 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1951
Since State v. Morrow, 175 Minn. 386 , , it has been settled that the general welfare clause of the Minneapolis city charter (c. 4, § 5) gives the council the power to license and make regulations governing open air motor vehicle parking lots.
City of Duluth v. Cerveny 16 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1944
City of Duluth v. Cerveny 16 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1944
State v. Morrow, 175 Minn. 386 , .
State v. Houston 298 N.W. 358 Minn. 1941
State v. Houston 298 N.W. 358 Minn. 1941
Paul v. Fielding & Shepley, Inc. 155 Minn. 471 , ; State v. Morrow, 175 Minn. 386 , ; Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 175 Minn. 276 , ; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Remick v. Clousing 285 N.W. 711 Minn. 1939
State Ex Rel. Remick v. Clousing 285 N.W. 711 Minn. 1939
State v. Morrow, 175 Minn. 386 , ; Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 175 Minn. 276 , , and cases cited therein.
Sverkerson v. City of Minneapolis 283 N.W. 555 Minn. 1939
Sverkerson v. City of Minneapolis 283 N.W. 555 Minn. 1939
175 Minn. 276 , (this same clause held to justify licensing of gasoline filling stations on private property although there was no specific grant of power, the court stating, p. 278: “There is however a tendency to permit the common council to legislate for the accomplishment of the objects mentioned in the general welfare clause though a specific grant is wanting.”); State v. Morrow, 175 Minn. 386, 387 , (“Such a general welfare clause as that found in the charter of Minneapolis is intended to
Tousley v. Leach 230 N.W. 788 Minn. 1930
Tousley v. Leach 230 N.W. 788 Minn. 1930
Paul v. Fielding & Shepley, Inc. 155 Minn. 471 , ; Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 175 Minn. 276 , ; State v. Morrow, 175 Minn. 386 , .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by