Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lowry v. City of Mankato, 42 N.W.2d 553.

31 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: H.B., Child. Minn. 2022
(“The word ‘including’ has a variable meaning” and is sometimes “ a word of enlargement and at others one of restriction.”).
Depositors Ins. Co. v. Dollansky 919 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2018
Depositors Ins. Co. v. Dollansky 919 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2018
See Lowry v. City of Mankato , 231 Minn. 108 , , 558 (1950) ; State ex rel.
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
("The word 'the' is a definitive and when used before a noun has a specifying and particularizing effect.” (quoting Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108, 115 , )).
Larson v. State 790 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
Larson v. State 790 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
See Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108, 115 , (“The word ‘the’ is a definitive and when used before a noun has a specifying and particularizing effect.”).
Coleman v. Ritchie 762 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 2009
Jackel v. Brower 668 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Jackel v. Brower 668 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The district court concluded that a property owner injured by the violation of a zoning ordinance is entitled to injunctive relief, citing Mohler, d at 634 , and Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108, 117
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Finally, a “property owner injured by [a permit issued in violation of city ordinance] is entitled to injunctive relief.” Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108, 117 , see also McCavic v. De Luca, 233 Minn. 372 , (concluding where defendant erected business building that extended seven feet into space prohibited by setback provisions of city ordinance, owners of adjoining residence property were entitled to mandatory injunction
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Delano Community Development Corp. 571 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1997
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Delano Community Development Corp. 571 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1997
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
214, 216 (1930) (stating that “risk is incidental to the employment when it belongs to or is connected with what a workman has to do in fulfilling his contract of service”); Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108, 114 , (concluding that “ ‘[ijncidental’ has much the same meaning as ‘accessory 1 and ‘subordinate’ and is *414 used to convey the idea of a thing being subordinate to, dependent on, and pertaining to another thing which is the principal one”).
Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. City of Savage 349 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. City of Savage 349 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Frank’s Nursery, d at 609 (citing Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108 , ).
Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1984
Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1984
Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108
Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville 295 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1980
Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville 295 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1980
A zoning ordinance must always be considered in light of its underlying policy, Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108 , but in this case an examination of legislative intent does not dictate a contrary result.
Anderson v. City of Minneapolis 178 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1970
Anderson v. City of Minneapolis 178 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1970
Paul, 240 Minn. 522 , 62 N. W. (2d) 363 ; Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108 , 42 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Roerig v. Houghton, 144 Minn. 231 , ; Lerch v. City of Duluth, 88 Minn. 295 , .
Volunteers of America v. City of Minneapolis 154 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1967
Volunteers of America v. City of Minneapolis 154 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1967
(4 series) Zoning, Key No. 23; Annotations, 37 A. L. R. (2d) 1143 and 168 A. L. R. 13, 133; cf. Newcomb v. Teske, 225 Minn. 223 , 30 N. W. (2d) 354 ; Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108 , 42 N. W. (2d) 553 ; McCavic v. DeLuca, 233 Minn. 372 , 46 N. W. (2d) 873 .
Binder v. Village of Golden Valley 110 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1961
Binder v. Village of Golden Valley 110 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1961
4 Newcombe v. Teske, 225 Minn. 223 , 30 N. W. (2d) 354 ; Lowry v. *424 City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108 , 42 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Burger v. City of St.
Nielsen v. City of St. Paul 88 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 1958
Nielsen v. City of St. Paul 88 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 1958
In Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108, 113 , 42 N. W. (2d) 553, 557 , this court in enunciating a rule applicable to similar situations said: “Where there are conflicts in the provisions of a statute or ordinance, the conflicts should be harmonized and reconciled in such a manner, if possible, as to give effect to the principal and more important clauses