Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 297 N.W. 9.

48 citing documents.

Contos v. Herbst 278 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1979
Contos v. Herbst 278 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1979
The process of selection involves classification with resulting diversity in the subjects selected for taxation 4 4 4 as well as in the amount of the tax.” C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , 297 N.W.
Wass v. Anderson 252 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1977
Wass v. Anderson 252 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1977
The general subject need not be stated in the title if it is clearly disclosed or can be readily inferred from the details expressed.” C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504, 512
Johnson v. Donovan 188 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1971
Johnson v. Donovan 188 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1971
In C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , , we reversed the trial court’s decision that a tax levied on chain stores but not on individual sellers violated the constitutional requirements of uniformity, and said, with respect to classification ( 209 Minn. 514 , ): “Equal protection does not require any iron rule of equality of taxat
Hunt v. Nevada State Bank 172 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1969
Hunt v. Nevada State Bank 172 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1969
That it is to be liberally construed is stated in Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177 , 89 N. W. (2d) 635 ; C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , .
DePonti Aviation, Inc. v. State 157 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1968
State v. Bell 157 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1968
DePonti Aviation, Inc. v. State 157 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1968
5 The significance of a statute’s title is discussed in C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , .
State v. Bell 157 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1968
All that is necessary is that the act should embrace some one general subject; and by this is meant, merely, that all matters treated of should fall under some one general idea, be so connected with or related to each other, either logically or in popular understanding, as to be parts of, or germane to, one general subject.” See, also, C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , ; Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177 , 89 N. W. (2d) 635 .
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer 147 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1966
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer 147 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1966
C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , .
State Ex Rel. McGregor v. Rigg 109 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1961
State Ex Rel. McGregor v. Rigg 109 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1961
C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , .
HOUSING & REDEVEL. AUTHOR. OF MINNEAPOLIS v. Mpls. Metropolitan Co. 104 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1960
Governmental Research Bureau, Inc. v. St. Louis County 104 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1960
Governmental Research Bureau, Inc. v. St. Louis County 104 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1960
In C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504, 509 , , we ruled that: “The subject of a statute is the matter to which it relates and with which it deals.
Visina v. Freeman 89 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1958
Visina v. Freeman 89 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1958
In C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504, 509 , , we said:.
State v. P. K. M. Electric Co-operative, Inc. 65 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1954
State v. P. K. M. Electric Co-operative, Inc. 65 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1954
he rule that a statute creating exemption from taxation must be strictly construed and that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxing authority, citing Northwestern Municipal Assn. v. United States (D. Minn.) 22 F. Supp. 18 , affirmed (8 Cir.) 99 F. (2d) 460; In re Estate of Raynolds, 219 Minn. 449 , 18 N. W. (2d) 238 ; C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. *412 504 , ; State v. Redwood Falls Bldg.
Western States Utilities Co. v. City of Waseca 65 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1954
Western States Utilities Co. v. City of Waseca 65 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1954
& Loan Assn. 189 Minn. 422 , , affirmed, 290 U. S. 398 , 54 S. Ct. 231 , 78 L. ed. 413; C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , .
Kaljuste v. Hennepin County Sanatorium Commission 61 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1953
Kaljuste v. Hennepin County Sanatorium Commission 61 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1953
It is pointed out in C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504, 519 , , that: “One who is not discriminated against by a legislative classification does not have an interest entitling him to raise the question of the unconstitutionality of a statute on the ground that it denies equal rights and privileges by discriminating between persons and classes generally or
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
C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , ; State v. Meyer, 228 Minn. 286 , 37 N. W. (2d) 3 ; Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority, 234 Minn. 221 , 48 N. W. (2d) 175 ; State ex rel.
State v. Meyer 37 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1949
State v. Meyer 37 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1949
e; providing for methods of treatment, training and education of young persons, including persons under 21 years of age found delinquent or guilty of crime; creating a youth conservation commission; appropriating funds therefor; and amending Minnesota Statutes 1945, Section 260.13.” The requirements of this constitutional provision are well stated in C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504, 509 , , as follows: “The subject of a statute is the matter to which it [art. -4, § 2
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, Webster's New International Dictionary (2 ed.) 1947; Tanner v. *Page 199 Little, 240 U.S. 369 , 36 S. Ct. 379 , 60 L. ed. 691 ; C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , 514 , 297 N.W.
General Mills, Inc. v. Division of Employment & Security 28 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1947
General Mills, Inc. v. Division of Employment & Security 28 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1947
National Tea Co. v. State, 205 Minn. 443 , ; C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , *310 .
Lyons v. Spaeth 20 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1945
Lyons v. Spaeth 20 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1945
Jur., Constitutional Law, § 476, the rule is stated in substantially the same language as in our Kellerman case, as follows: “* * * Asa matter of fact, as some of the courts have remarked,' all legislation involves classification; * * *.” See, C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504, 514 , ; City of Xenia v. Schmidt, 101 Ohio St.
State v. Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 15 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 1944
State v. Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 15 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 1944
Reed v. Bjornson, 191 Minn. 254 , ; C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , .
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation 12 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1943
Blanton v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 10 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1943
Blanton v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 10 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1943
And again, as we held in C. Thomas Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504, 509 , , 13: “A subject embraces all provisions which are germane to it; they may be parts of it, incident to it, or means auxiliary to the end in view.
State v. Palmer 3 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1942
State v. Palmer 3 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1942
Insofar as § 18 is an exception to or reservation from the general application of the act, it is germane to the title and comes within the rule announced in C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , .
State v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. 299 N.W. 657 Minn. 1941
State v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. 299 N.W. 657 Minn. 1941
See C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , .
Arneson v. W. H. Barber Co. 297 N.W. 335 Minn. 1941
Arneson v. W. H. Barber Co. 297 N.W. 335 Minn. 1941
The process of selection involves classification with resulting diversity in the subjects selected for taxation and exemption as well as in the amount of the tax.” C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , .