Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 120 N.W.2d 871.

33 citing documents.

BC Seva, LLC, d/b/a Suburban Studios, et al., Relators, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A reviewing court’s function in reviewing the proceedings of a municipality is to “determine whether the council exercised an honest and reasonable discretion, or whether it acted capriciously, arbitrarily, or oppressively.”
Almir Puce v. City of Burnsville, MN., A21-0895, Supreme Court. September 28, 2023. Minn. 2023
Almir Puce v. City of Burnsville, MN., A21-0895, Supreme Court. September 28, 2023. Minn. 2023
(“In reviewing the proceedings of the municipality it is not the court’s function to pass on the wisdom of the [decision], but only to determine whether the council exercised an honest and reasonable discretion, or whether it acted capriciously, arbitrarily, or oppressively.
In Re the On-Sale Liquor License, Class B 763 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the On-Sale Liquor License, Class B 763 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166, 171
DRJ, INC. v. City of St. Paul 741 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
DRJ, INC. v. City of St. Paul 741 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
When local governmental units exercise their licensing authority, especially in connection with the sale of liquor, they must determine whether continued operations will be “detrimental to the public good.” Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166, 171 , (footnote omitted) (describing judicial deference to discretion of city council determining whether to revoke liquor licenses).
In Re Henry Youth Hockey Ass'n, License No. 02795 511 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re Henry Youth Hockey Ass'n, License No. 02795 511 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Sabes v. City of Mpls., 265 Minn. 166, 177
Bourbon Bar & Cafe Corp. v. City of St. Paul 466 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bourbon Bar & Cafe Corp. v. City of St. Paul 466 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166, 171
LeClair v. Commissioner of Public Safety 416 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
LeClair v. Commissioner of Public Safety 416 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166, 169-70 , (no material prejudice by insufficiency of notice when attorney for party had actual notice of bases for city council’s proposal to revoke licenses necessary to operate bar and the opportunity to be heard).
Anton's, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 375 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Anton's, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 375 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166, 171 , quoted in Miller v. City of St.
Miller v. City of Saint Paul 363 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Miller v. City of Saint Paul 363 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166, 171
Hymanson v. City of St. Paul 329 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1983
Hymanson v. City of St. Paul 329 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1983
Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166 , cf. Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339
Peterson v. Minneapolis City Council 274 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1979
Peterson v. Minneapolis City Council 274 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1979
Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166
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
In applying this scope of review, the trial court should be guided by our statement in Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166, 171 , : * * jn reviewing the proceedings of the municipality it is not the court’s function to pass on the wisdom of the [payment], but only to determine whether the council exercised an honest and reasonable discretion, or whether it acted capriciously, arbitrarily, or oppressively.’ “We fu
Country Liquors, Inc. v. City Council of Minneapolis 264 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1978
Country Liquors, Inc. v. City Council of Minneapolis 264 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1978
See, also, Federal Distillers, Inc. v. State, 304 Minn. 28 , Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166 , Anderson v. City of St.
Warsett v. City of Crystal 246 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 1976
Warsett v. City of Crystal 246 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 1976
In Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166, 171 , we stated: “No citizen has an inherent or vested right to sell intoxicating liquors, and municipal authorities have broad discretion within their geographical jurisdiction to determine'the manner in which liquor licenses shall be issued, regulated, and revoked.
Douglas v. City of Minneapolis 230 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1975
Douglas v. City of Minneapolis 230 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1975
In applying this scope of review, the trial court should be guided by our statement in Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166, 171 , : “* * * In reviewing the proceedings of the municipality it is not the court’s function to pass on the wisdom of the [payment], but only to determine whether the council exercised an honest and reasonable discretion, or whether it acted capriciously, arbitrarily, or oppressively.” 5
State v. Saugen 169 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1969
State v. Saugen 169 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1969
It bases its argument on the fact that “[n]o citizen *405 has an inherent or vested right to sell intoxicating liquors.” 2 Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166, 171 , 120 N. W. (2d) 871, 875 .
Morey v. School Board of Independent School District No. 492 136 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1965
Morey v. School Board of Independent School District No. 492 136 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1965
Ging v. Board of Education, 213 Minn. 550 , 7 N. W. (2d) 544 ; Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166 , 120 N. W. (2d) 871 .