Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lee v. Delmont, 36 N.W.2d 530.

133 citing documents.

State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
of Comm’rs v. State, Dep’t of Nat’l Res., (quoting Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 108 , ) (ellipsis in original), review denied (Minn. Aug.
McLeod County Board of Commissioners v. State, Department of Natural Resources 549 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
McLeod County Board of Commissioners v. State, Department of Natural Resources 549 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
It is not for this court “to question the wisdom * * * of a police regulation.” Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 108
State v. Murphy 545 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1996
State v. Murphy 545 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1996
Neither the ripe nor the ripening seeds of controversy are present.” Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 110
Kennedy v. Carlson 544 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1996
Kennedy v. Carlson 544 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1996
Accord Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101 , 110— 11, (A litigant challenging the constitutionality of statute must show that the statute “is, or is about to be, applied to his disadvantage.”).
Mid-City Hotel Associates v. Hennepin County Board of Commissioners 516 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Mid-City Hotel Associates v. Hennepin County Board of Commissioners 516 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Lee v. *577 Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 113
Medill v. State 477 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1991
Medill v. State 477 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1991
Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 112 , (emphasis in original).
In Re the Welfare of Z.P.B. 474 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of Z.P.B. 474 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Neither the ripe nor the ripening seeds of controversy are present.” (citations omitted) (quoting Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 110 , ).
Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc. 456 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1990
Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc. 456 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1990
“Issues which have no existence other than in the realm of future possibility are purely hypothetical and are not justiciable.” Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 110
Vang v. Commissioner of Public Safety 432 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Vang v. Commissioner of Public Safety 432 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 110
MINN. ENERGY & ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH. v. Printy 351 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1984
MINN. ENERGY & ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH. v. Printy 351 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1984
The leading Minnesota case on delegation by the legislative branch to a state administrative agency is Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101
Manufactured Housing Institute v. Pettersen 347 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1984
Manufactured Housing Institute v. Pettersen 347 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1984
See Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 114 , (enabling acts are to be interpreted so as to authorize only reasonable regulations).
State v. Young 294 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1980
State v. Young 294 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1980
See, Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101
State v. Colsch 284 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1979
State v. Colsch 284 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1979
See, Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101
Tracy v. Streater/Litton Industries 283 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1979
Tracy v. Streater/Litton Industries 283 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1979
See, Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 395 , Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 108
City of Richfield v. Local No. 1215, International Ass'n of Fire Fighters 276 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1979
City of Richfield v. Local No. 1215, International Ass'n of Fire Fighters 276 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1979
Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 112
Contos v. Herbst 278 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1979
Contos v. Herbst 278 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1979
Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101 , McElhone v. Geror, 207 Minn. 580 , 292 N.W.
In Re the Disbarment of Gillard 271 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1978
In Re the Disbarment of Gillard 271 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1978
Respondent argues that under art. 6, § 9 the power to remove is a purely legislative power which cannot be delegated, Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 112 , or, alternatively, if delegable, it cannot be delegated to another branch of government, State ex rel.
State v. Forge 262 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1977
State v. Forge 262 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1977
Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308 , , 9 A.L.R.3d 746 (1964); Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101
No Power Line, Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council 262 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1977
No Power Line, Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council 262 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1977
the administration of any statute or rule, which denies public expression or inquiry on the point of the cost of a proposed activity of a regulated industry, especially one which will drastically affect the public pocketbook, is an unlawful delegation of legislative powers, and hence contrary to the provisions of Article III of the Minnesota Constitution.” As this court stated in Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 113 , and affirmed in Remington Arms Co. Inc. v. G. E. M., 257 Minn. 562, 570 , : “ *
St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Marzitelli 258 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1977
St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Marzitelli 258 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1977
Smith v. Haveland, supra; 1 Lee v. Belmont, 228 Minn. 101
State v. King 257 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1977
State v. King 257 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1977
As was stated in Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101, 113 , : “ * * * The power to ascertain facts, which automatically brings a law into operation by virtue of its own terms, is not the power to pass, modify, or annul a law.
Collis v. City of Bloomington 246 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1976
Collis v. City of Bloomington 246 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1976
Paul, 285 Minn. 378 , Lee v. Belmont, 228 Minn. 101 , State ex rel.
Federal Distillers, Inc. v. State 229 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1975
Federal Distillers, Inc. v. State 229 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1975
Service Union, 241 Minn. 523 , d *39 16 (1954) ; Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101
City of Minneapolis v. Krebes 226 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 1975
City of Minneapolis v. Krebes 226 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 1975
In Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101 , this court discussed the constitutional limitations on the delegation of power by a legislative body.
Minnesota Board of Barber Examiners v. Laurance 218 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1974
Minnesota Board of Barber Examiners v. Laurance 218 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1974
As was stated in the case of Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101 , it is well established that the trade of barbering, the teaching thereof, and the operation or management of a barber school require technical training, study, and experience in order to safeguard the public health and welfare, and that the regulation thereof is therefore a proper exercise of
Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation 184 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1971