Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Visina v. Freeman, 89 N.W.2d 635.

70 citing documents.

Original Jurisdiction Per Curiam Minn. 2020
Compare In re Tveten , –59 (Minn. 1987) (addressing a claim that a statute violated the general prohibition on special legislation) , – 51 (Minn. 1958) (same), –63 (Minn. 1964) (addressing a claim t hat a statute was a special law granting special or exclusive privileges to a corporation, association, or individual) , –65 (Minn. 1958) (
Schowalter v. State 822 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2012
Schowalter v. State 822 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2012
of the language of [a] constitutional provision”); Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 194 , (stating that “the right to amend the constitution rests with the people and should not be usurped by the courts in the guise of judicial interpretation” in order to achieve a desired result).
Walker v. Zuehlke 642 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2002
Walker v. Zuehlke 642 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2002
Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 195
Walser Auto Sales, Inc. v. City of Richfield 635 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Walser Auto Sales, Inc. v. City of Richfield 635 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Likewise, “[t]he mere fact that some private interest may derive an incidental benefit from the activity does not deprive the activity of its public nature if its primary purpose is public.” Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 184
Walker v. Itasca County Auditor 624 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Walker v. Itasca County Auditor 624 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
A tax statute is constitutional if it is based upon “a reasonable relationship to the apportionment of the taxes and the benefit to be derived by that segment of our population required to bear the financial burden.” Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 195
Larson v. Sando 508 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Larson v. Sando 508 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Visina, v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 196-99 , -52 (1958); State ex rel.
Pike v. Gunyou 488 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pike v. Gunyou 488 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(emphasis added) (citing Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 184 , ).
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of Hennepin 478 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1991
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of Hennepin 478 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1991
Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 197 , Loew v. Hagerle Bros., 226 Minn. 485, 489
Matter of Mn. Indep. Equal Access 477 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Matter of Mn. Indep. Equal Access 477 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 197 , ("To whatever class the law applies, it must apply to every *522 member of that class; that is to say, it must treat all alike who are similarly situated").
J.L. Shiely Co. v. County of Stearns 395 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1986
J.L. Shiely Co. v. County of Stearns 395 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1986
Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n, (certain cities partly within metropolitan area exempted from stadium tax in order to avoid inequality of tax burden on competitors within the exempted cities); Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 195 , (tax to sup-' port Duluth Port Authority limited to areas of St.
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
Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 184
United States Steel Corp. v. State 324 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1982
United States Steel Corp. v. State 324 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1982
In Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177 , we were dealing with the question of whether areas beyond Duluth sufficiently benefited from the construction of a port facility in that city to justify imposing the burden of taxation elsewhere.
State ex rel. Citizens Against Power Plant Pollution, Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 305 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1981
State ex rel. Citizens Against Power Plant Pollution, Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 305 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1981
Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 195-99 , -52 (1958); State v. Cloudy & Traverse, 159 Minn. 200 , 198 N.W.
City of Shakopee v. Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative 303 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
City of Shakopee v. Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative 303 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
See Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177
City of Winona v. Policeman's Relief Ass'n of Winona 281 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 1979
City of Winona v. Policeman's Relief Ass'n of Winona 281 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 1979
See, Visina v, Freeman, 252 Minn. 177
Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 270 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1978
Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 270 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1978
Paul v. Fisher, 275 Minn. 157 , ; Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177 , ; Erickson v. King, 218 Minn. 98 , , as permissible inducements to lure the private sector into the redevelopment plan.” The Burns case can be distinguished in that in Burns the city of Eveleth was attempting to bail out the Eveleth Athletic Association and pay its bills for a project alr
R. E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis 269 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1978
R. E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis 269 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1978
Paul v. Greenman, 255 Minn. 396 , Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177 , Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth, 234 Minn. 221 , Erickson v. King, 218 *337 Minn. 98, Behrens v. City of Minneapolis, 199 Minn. 363 , 271 N.W.
Village of Burnsville v. Onischuk 222 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 1974
Village of Burnsville v. Onischuk 222 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 1974
We moved away from the strict application of the “special benefits” rule in Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 195
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency v. Hatfield 210 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 1973
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency v. Hatfield 210 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 1973
Davidson v. County of Ramsey, 18 Minn. 432 (482) (1872); Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177 , Port Authority of City of St.
HOUSING & REDEV. AUTH. OF CITY OF ST. PAUL v. Schapiro 210 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 1973
HOUSING & REDEV. AUTH. OF CITY OF ST. PAUL v. Schapiro 210 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 1973
E.g., Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177 , Asch v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority, 256 Minn. 146 , Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Greenman, 255 Minn. 396 , Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Minneapolis Metropolitan Co. 259 Minn. 1 , Port A
Jude v. Erdahl 207 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 1973
PORT AUTHORITY OF CITY OF ST. PAUL v. Groppoli 202 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1972
PORT AUTHORITY OF CITY OF ST. PAUL v. Groppoli 202 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1972
E.g., Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177 , Asch v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority, 256 Minn. 146 , Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Greenman, 255 Minn. 396 , Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Minneapolis Metropolitan Co. 259 Minn. 1 , Housin
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Hatfield 200 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1972
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Hatfield 200 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1972
In Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 184 , we said in that regard: “In determining whether an act of the state constitutes a performance of a governmental function or a public purpose which will justify the expenditure of public money, a legislative declaration of public purpose is not always controlling.
City of Pipestone v. Madsen 178 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1970
City of Pipestone v. Madsen 178 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1970
It is equally well settled that, if the primary object is to promote some private end, the expenditure is illegal, although’ it may incidentally serve some public purpose also.” Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171, 174 , ; Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177 , 89 N. W. (2d) 635 .
Hunt v. Nevada State Bank 172 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1969
Hunt v. Nevada State Bank 172 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1969
That it is to be liberally construed is stated in Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177 , 89 N. W. (2d) 635 ; C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , .
State v. Bell 157 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1968
State v. Bell 157 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1968
act should embrace some one general subject; and by this is meant, merely, that all matters treated of should fall under some one general idea, be so connected with or related to each other, either logically or in popular understanding, as to be parts of, or germane to, one general subject.” See, also, C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , ; Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177 , 89 N. W. (2d) 635 .