Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sobelman., 271 N.W. 484.

26 citing documents.

In Re the Estate of Jotham 704 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Estate of Jotham 704 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that “[b]efore it can be said that a later act is intended as a substitute for the earlier, ‘there must be unmistakable intent manifested on the part of the legislature to make the new act a substitute for the old and to contain all the law on the subject.’ ” State v. Target Stores, Inc., 279 Minn. 447, 474 , (quoting State v. Sobelman, 199 Minn. 232, 236 , 271 N.W.
State v. Guminga 395 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 1986
State Ex Rel. McClure v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. 370 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1985
State v. Hayes 351 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hayes 351 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“The protection of the morals and general well-being of minors is obviously what the statute aims at.” State v. Sobelman, 199 Minn. 232, 234 , 271 N.W.
State v. Young 268 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1978
State v. Young 268 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1978
‘Statutes are to be so construed as to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy, to promote rather than defeat the purpose of the legislature.’ State v. Sobelman, 199 Minn. 232, 235 , 271 N.W.
State v. Target Stores, Inc. 156 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1968
State v. Target Stores, Inc. 156 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1968
The principle *474 of implied statutory repeal is not favored; 54 rather, as stated in State v. Sobelman, 199 Minn. 232, 236 , , 486: “* * * Before it can be said that a later act is intended as a substitute for the earlier, ‘there must be unmistakable intent manifested on the part of the legislature to make the new act a substitute for the old and to contain all the law on the subject; for mere similarity in the provisio
State v. Mathiasen 141 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1966
State v. Mathiasen 141 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1966
State v. Sobelman, 199 Minn. 232 , ; State v. Cantrell, 220 Minn. 13 , 18 N. W. (2d) 681 .
Sabes v. City of Minneapolis 120 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1963
Sabes v. City of Minneapolis 120 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1963
State v. Sobelman, 199 Minn. 232, 235 , .
Hahn v. City of Ortonville 57 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1953
Hahn v. City of Ortonville 57 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1953
& Supp. § 6813; Peterson, Governmental Responsibility for Torts in Minnesota, 26 Minn. L. Rev. 293 , 299 to 306; cf. State v. Lundgren, 124 Minn. 162 , ; State v. Sobelman, 199 Minn. 232 , ; State v. Holm, 201 Minn. 53 , .
Anderson v. City of St. Paul 32 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1948
Anderson v. City of St. Paul 32 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1948
See, State v. Sobelman, 199 Minn. 232 , 236-237 , 271 N.W.
State v. Lanesboro Produce & Hatchery Co. 21 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1946
State v. Lanesboro Produce & Hatchery Co. 21 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1946
Judicial consideration of such enactments is limited to the inquiry whether the constitutional rights of the citizens are *262 thereby violated or impaired.” See, State v. Bean, 199 Minn. 16 , ; State v. Sobelman, 199 Minn. 232 , .
State v. Cantrell 18 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1945
State v. Cantrell 18 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1945
One of our late cases is State v. Sobelman, 199 Minn. 232 , .
State v. Burns 9 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1943
State v. Burns 9 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1943
These relate principally to the sale of liquor and food and similar regulations, State v. Sobelman, 199 Minn. 232 , ; 2 Am.
State v. Holm 275 N.W. 401 Minn. 1937
State v. Holm 275 N.W. 401 Minn. 1937
“Statutes are to be so construed as to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy, to promote rather than defeat the purpose of the legislature.” State v. Sobelman, 199 Minn. 232, 235 , .