DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mayes v. Byers, 7 N.W.2d 403.

45 citing documents.

  • EP Land LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    h the enactment of new ordinances, therefore implying that an ordinance does not end but remains in effect until it is replaced by another ordinance); d 863, 865 (Minn. 1957) (“Zoning ordinances have long been upheld as legitimate exercises of the police power as long as they conform to the usual limitations governing the exercise of that power.”) ; (“A city ordinance within its proper scope has the force and effect of law.”); Builders Ass’n of Minn. v. City of St.
  • Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice County 824 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice County 824 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    Paul, -82 (Minn.App.2012) (“An ordinance is commonly defined as an ‘authoritative law or decree,’ especially ‘a municipal regulation.’ ” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1208 (9th ed.2009))); see also Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54, 63 , (“A city ordinance within its proper scope has the force and effect of law.”); Bott v. Pratt, 33 Minn. 323, 328 , 23 N.W.
  • Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Co. of Minnesota 787 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2010
  • Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Co. of Minnesota 787 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2010
    Cf. Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54, 63 , (“A city ordinance within its proper scope has the force and effect of law.”).
  • Robinson v. Lamott 289 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1979
  • Robinson v. Lamott 289 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1979
    Support for this contention is found in Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , noted in 27 Minn.L.Rev.
  • Armstrong v. Mailand 284 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1979
  • Armstrong v. Mailand 284 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1979
    Cf. Zerby v. Warren, 297 Minn. 134 , Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , Weber v. J. E. Barr Packing Corp., 182 Minn. 486 , 234 N.W.
  • Scott v. Independent School District No. 709 256 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 1977
  • Scott v. Independent School District No. 709 256 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 1977
    See, Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54
  • Turk v. Long Branch Saloon, Inc. 159 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1968
  • Turk v. Long Branch Saloon, Inc. 159 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1968
    2 Sworski v. Colman, 204 Minn. 474 , ; Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403 , 144 A. L. R. 821; Cavin v. Smith, 228 Minn. 322 , 37 N. W. (2d) 368 ; Randall v. Village of Excelsior, 258 Minn. 81 , 103 N. W. (2d) 131 .
  • Muckler v. Buchl 150 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
  • Muckler v. Buchl 150 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
    Bank, 243 Minn. 442 , 68 N. W. (2d) 362 ; Gross v. General Investment Co. 194 Minn. 23 , ; Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403 , 144 A. L. R. 821; Mitton v. Cargill Elev.
  • Herbes v. Village of Holdingford 125 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1963
  • Herbes v. Village of Holdingford 125 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1963
    In that case we reviewed prior decisions, including Beck v. Groe, 245 Minn. 28 , 70 N. W. (2d) 886 , 52 A. L. R. (2d) 875; Philips v. Aretz, 215 Minn. 325 , 10 N. W. (2d) 226 ; and Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403 , 144 A. L. R. 821.
  • Dahl v. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK MINNEAPOLIS 121 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1963
  • Dahl v. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK MINNEAPOLIS 121 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1963
    7 In Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403 , 144 A. L. R. 821, we reviewed a suit based on an ordinance corresponding to § 340.12 in which contributory negligence was urged as a defense.
  • Hartwig v. Loyal Order of Moose, Brainerd Lodge No. 1246 91 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 1958
  • Hartwig v. Loyal Order of Moose, Brainerd Lodge No. 1246 91 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 1958
    Damage Act of this state, has been construed by this court as to various questions that have arisen in connection with the act’s application in Beck v. Groe, 245 Minn. 28 , 70 N. W. (2d) 886 , 52 A. L. R. (2d) 875; Hahn v. City of Ortonville, 238 Minn. 428 , 57 N. W. (2d) 254 ; Fox v. Swartz, 228 Minn. 233 , 36 N. W. (2d) 708 ; Philips v. Aretz, 215 Minn. 325 , 10 N. W. (2d) 226 ; Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403 , 144 A. L. R. 821; Sworski v. Colman, 204 Minn. 474 , ; Fest v. Ols
  • State v. Simonsen 89 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1958
  • State v. Simonsen 89 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1958
    2 See, State v. Ritschel, 220 Minn. 578 , 20 N. W. (2d) 673 , 168 A. L. R. 274; Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403 , 144 A. L. R. 821.
  • Adamson v. Dougherty 81 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1957
  • Adamson v. Dougherty 81 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1957
    See Mayes v. Beyers, 214 Minn. 54 , Beck v. Groe, 245 Minn. 28
  • Beck v. Groe 70 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1955
  • Beck v. Groe 70 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1955
    In the case of Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54, 63 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403, 407 , 144 A. L. R. 821, this court held that the liability created under the liquor license laws has for its basis “a penalty measured by the injuries suffered” within the limits fixed by the bond.
  • Lavalle Ex Rel. Lavalle v. Kaupp 61 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1953
  • Lavalle Ex Rel. Lavalle v. Kaupp 61 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1953
    8 See, Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403 , 144 A. L. R. 821; Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co. 180 Minn. 21 , .
  • Stabs v. City of Tower 40 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1949
  • Stabs v. City of Tower 40 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1949
    In support of the first claimed ground of recovery, plaintiff contends that under § 340.12, as construed in Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403 , 144 A. L. R. 821, the liability of an operator of an on- and off-sale exclusive liquor store to a patron upon his liquor dealer’s bond for harm caused by an illegal act in connection with the operation of his establishment is not for a tort, but for a penalty measured by the damages sustained by t
  • Fox v. Swartz 36 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1949
  • Fox v. Swartz 36 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1949
    5 Philips v. Aretz, 215 Minn. 325, 330 , 10 N. W. (2d) 226, 229 ; Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54, 63 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403, 407 , 144 A. L. R. 821.
  • Barrett v. Nash Finch Co. 36 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1949
  • Barrett v. Nash Finch Co. 36 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1949
    Co. 218 Minn. 488 , 16 N. W. [2d] 553; Hanson v. Hall, 202 Minn. 381 , ), or a ground for the recovery of a penalty (Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , 7 N. W. [2d] 403, 144 A. S. R. 821).
  • 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
    In Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , , 144 A.L.R.
  • Dart v. Pure Oil Co. 27 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1947
  • Dart v. Pure Oil Co. 27 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1947
    In the case of Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403 , 144 A. L. R. 821, plaintiff’s action was tried, pursuant to stipulation, on the basis of a contract and not as one based on negligence.
  • Johnson v. Evanski 22 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1946
  • Johnson v. Evanski 22 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1946
    See, Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403 , 144 A. L. R. 821.
  • State v. Ritschel 20 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1945
  • State v. Ritschel 20 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1945
    Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403 , 144 A. L. R. 821.
  • Philips v. Aretz 10 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1943
  • Philips v. Aretz 10 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1943
    In the recent case of Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54, 63 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403, 407 , we held that the liability created under the liquor license statute has for its basis “a penalty measured by the injuries suffered” within the limits fixed by the bond.