Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 16 N.W.2d 779.

52 citing documents.

Bicking v. City of Minneapolis 891 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2017
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis 891 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2017
8 A conflict exists between state law and a municipal regulation when the law and the regulation “contain express or implied terms that are irreconcilable with each other,” when “the ordinance permits what the statute forbids,” or when “the ordinance forbids what the statute expressly permits.” Mangold Midwest Co., 274 Minn. at 352 , d at 816 ; see also City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511, 520-21, 16 .
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
See City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511, 524, (stating that we ordinarily do not consider issues not raised in briefing).
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
See City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511, 524 , (citing Cutting v. *296 Weber, 77 Minn. 53, 54 , 79 N.W.
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch 872 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2015
In Re the On-Sale Liquor License, Class B 763 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Distinguished In Re the On-Sale Liquor License, Class B 763 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
218 Minn. 511, 516 , (quotation omitted).
In Re the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted to Haslund Ex Rel. City of St. Mary's … 759 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted to Haslund Ex Rel. City of St. Mary's … 759 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“[W]hen an ordinance conflicts with a well-established law of the state the *688 ordinance must yield and the statute prevail.” City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511, 520
Lilly v. City of Minneapolis 527 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kayo Oil Co. v. City of Hopkins 397 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kayo Oil Co. v. City of Hopkins 397 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Cleveland v. Rice County, 238 Minn. 180 , 182, , 643 (1952) quoting City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511, 516
Huygen v. Plums Enterprises of St. Paul, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Huygen v. Plums Enterprises of St. Paul, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , the Minnesota Supreme Court stated the simple rule: ‘A city ordinance, covering a subject also covered by a state law, is valid, if it is consistent with the state law and preserves the standard of regulation as moulded by such general law.’ Id.
St. Paul Citizens for Human Rights v. City Council of St. Paul 289 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1979
St. Paul Citizens for Human Rights v. City Council of St. Paul 289 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1979
See, City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , where we held that an ordinance providing for the forfeiture of intoxicating liquor did not violate the Duluth Charter provision that no law shall embrace more than one subject because the question of forfeiture had a logical and material connection to the subject of regulating the sale of into
Hunt v. Nevada State Bank 172 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1969
Hunt v. Nevada State Bank 172 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1969
Co. 215 Minn. 442 , 10 N. W. (2d) 382 ; City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , 16 N. W. (2d) 779 ; State v. Meyer, 228 Minn. 286 , 37 N. W. (2d) 3 .
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
Being of such character it is valid.” See, also, City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , 16 N. W. (2d) 779 ; State v. Weeks, 216 Minn. 279 , 12 N. W. (2d) 493 ; State v. Houston, 210 Minn. 379 , ; State v. Harris, 50 Minn. 128 , ; State v. Ludwig, 21 Minn. 202 .
Minnetonka Electric Co. v. Village of Golden Valley 141 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1966
Minnetonka Electric Co. v. Village of Golden Valley 141 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1966
The village cites City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , 16 N. W. (2d) 779 , and City of St.
Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington 125 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1964
Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington 125 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1964
City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , 16 N. W. (2d) 779 .
State v. Demry 109 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1961
State v. Demry 109 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1961
Paul v. Stovall, 225 Minn. 309 , 30 N. W. (2d) 638 ; State v. Siporen, 215 Minn. 438 , 10 N. W. (2d) 353 ; State v. Sauer, 217 Minn. 591 , 15 N. W. (2d) 17 ; City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , 16 N. W. (2d) 779 ; State v. Roff, 250 Iowa 174 , 93 N. W. (2d) 107 ; United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56 , 70 S. Ct. 430 , 94 L. ed. 653; 6 C. J. S., Arrests, § 18; 4 Am.
Benell v. City of Virginia 104 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1960
Benell v. City of Virginia 104 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1960
It is our opinion that the challenged resolution constitutes an administrative act adopted by the hospital commission pursuant to Charter of City of Virginia, § 200-C, 1 in furtherance of the administration, operation, maintenance, and control of the hospital, City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , 16 N. W. (2d) 779 , and that accordingly the function of this court is limited to a determination whether the commission’s action in adopting the resolution was arbitrary or unreasonable.
Village of Brooklyn Center v. Rippen 96 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1959
Village of Brooklyn Center v. Rippen 96 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1959
City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511, 518 , 16 N. W. (2d) 779, 783 .
State v. Kuss 84 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1957
State v. Kuss 84 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1957
City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , 16 N. W. (2d) 779 ; Anderson v. City of St.
Buhl v. Joint Independent Consolidated School District No. 11 82 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1957
Buhl v. Joint Independent Consolidated School District No. 11 82 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1957
Sverkerson v. City of Minneapolis, 204 Minn. 388 , , 120 A. L. R. 944; City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , 16 N. W. (2d) 779 .
Zuber v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 74 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1956
Cleveland v. County of Rice 56 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1952
Cleveland v. County of Rice 56 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1952
In discussing the implied powers of a city to regulate the liquor traffic, this court in City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511, 516 , 16 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
City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , 16 N. W. (2d) 779 ; State ex rel.
Minneapolis Street Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis 40 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1949
Minneapolis Street Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis 40 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1949
In construing this clause in City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511, 517, 518 , 16 N. W. (2d) 779, 783 , we said: “* * * A city exercises police power within its jurisdiction to practically the same extent as the state itself.
Kotschevar v. Township of North Fork 39 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1949
Mitchell v. City of St. Paul 36 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1949
Mitchell v. City of St. Paul 36 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1949
Almquist v. City of Biwabik, 224 Minn. 503 , 28 N. W. (2d) 744 ; City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , 16 N. W. (2d) 779 ; State ex rel.
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
Since this action involves the constitutionality of a city ordinance, we point out, as we said in City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , 516 , , 782 , that the business of selling intoxicating liquor at retail for use as a beverage is peculiarly subject not only to state but to local regulation.
Kuhnle v. Swedlund 20 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1945
Kuhnle v. Swedlund 20 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1945
Const, art. 4, § 27, which provides: “No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” The title to L. 1941, c. 440, reads: “An act relating to survival of causes of action arising out of injuries to the person, and to amend Mason’s Minnesota Statutes of 1927, Section 9656.” This court passed upon this question recently in the case of City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511 , 16 N. W. (2d) 779 .