Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dimke v. Finke, 295 N.W. 75.

35 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Casino Marketing Group, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1992
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Casino Marketing Group, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1992
Although this presumption of constitutionality is well established in the ordinary case, see, e.g., Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29, 32 , 295 N.W.
In Re Haggerty 448 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 1989
In Re Haggerty 448 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 1989
Thus, the area homestead exemption is a “creature of statute.” Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29, 38 , 295 N.W.
Invention Marketing, Inc. v. Spannaus 279 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1979
Invention Marketing, Inc. v. Spannaus 279 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1979
See, Federal Distillers, Inc. v. State, 304 Minn. 28, 39 , Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29, 32 , 295 N.W.
Village of Zumbrota v. Johnson 161 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1968
Village of Zumbrota v. Johnson 161 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1968
Bank, 143 Minn. 408 , ; State v. Ernst, 209 Minn. 586 , , 134 A. L. R. 643; Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29 , ; Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co. 220 Minn. 318 , 19 N. W. (2d) 795 ; 16A C. J. S., Constitutional Law, §§ 569(4) and 571.
Twin City Candy and Tobacco Co. v. A. Weisman Co. 149 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1967
Twin City Candy and Tobacco Co. v. A. Weisman Co. 149 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1967
Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29, 32 , .
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
Co. 126 Minn. 286 , ; Eldred v. Division of Employment and Security, 209 Minn. 58 , ; State v. International Harvester Co. 241 Minn. 367 , 63 N. W. (2d) 547 , appeal dismissed, 348 U. S. 853 , 75 S. Ct. 78 , 99 L. ed. 672; Arens v. Village of Rogers, 240 Minn. 386 , 61 N. W. (2d) 508 , appeal dismissed, 347 U. S. 949 , 74 S. Ct. 680 , 98 L. ed. 1096; Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29 , ; Anderson v. City of St.
State Ex Rel. Flores v. Tahash 138 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1965
State Ex Rel. Flores v. Tahash 138 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1965
618.02 provides: “Except as authorized by this chapter it shall be unlawful for any person to sell, prescribe, administer, dispense or furnish to a minor, or manufacture, possess, have under his control, sell, prescribe, administer, dispense, or compound any narcotic drug.” 2 State v. Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74, 78 , ; Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29, 33 , ; Anderson v. City of St.
Denzer v. Prendergast 126 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1964
Denzer v. Prendergast 126 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1964
Co. v. Houle, 169 Minn. 209 , , 48 A. L. R. 1266; Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29 , ; Renville State Bank v. Lentz, 171 Minn. 431 , ; Keys v. Schultz, 212 Minn. 109 , 2 N. W. (2d) 549 ; Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374 , 39 N. W. (2d) 545 .
Grobe v. Oak Center Creamery Co. 113 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1962
Grobe v. Oak Center Creamery Co. 113 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1962
*62 87 Minn. 325 , , 60 L. R. A. 161; Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29, 32 , ; State ex rel.
Minneapolis Gas Co. v. Zimmerman 91 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1958
Minneapolis Gas Co. v. Zimmerman 91 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1958
9 Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29, 32 , ; State ex rel.
Visina v. Freeman 89 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1958
Visina v. Freeman 89 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1958
580 , 27 P. 263 , 13 L. R. A. 533; see, Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29 , , 25 Minn. L. Rev. 520 .
Reyburn v. Minnesota State Board of Optometry 78 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 1956
Reyburn v. Minnesota State Board of Optometry 78 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 1956
1 See, Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29 , ; Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388 , 55 S. Ct. 241 , 79 L. ed. 446.
Hennepin County v. Jacobson 72 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1955
Hennepin County v. Jacobson 72 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1955
Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29 , .
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
[14] For collection of Minnesota cases on delegation of authority, see Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29, 37 , 295 N.W.
Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth 48 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1951
Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth 48 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1951
Marketing Assn. v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471 , ; Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29 , ; Apartment Operators Assn. v. City of Minneapolis, 191 Minn. 365 , .
Lee v. Delmont 36 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1949
Lee v. Delmont 36 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1949
Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29 , ; Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S: 388, 55 S. Ct. 241 , 79 L. ed. 446.
Leighton v. Abell 31 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1948
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
This court in Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29, 32 , , stated the rule as follows: “The rules by which this court must be guided in determining whether an act of the legislature is constitutional are well estab- *255 listed.