Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lindahl v. Independent School District No. 306, 133 N.W.2d 23.

24 citing documents.

Bruce Township v. Kevin Schmitz, Nathan A. Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Bruce Township v. Kevin Schmitz, Nathan A. Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
No. 306, 270 Minn. 164, 169-70, (stating that even when statutory provisions “clearly and expressly” impose certain requirements on school bonding elections, a court need not “impose the drastic consequence of invalidity” if the court concludes “there was no fraud, bad faith, or
Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Co. of Minnesota 765 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Co. of Minnesota 765 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
No. 306, 270 Minn. 164, 168
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Boyne 578 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1998
Rhodenbaugh v. City of Bayport 450 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Rhodenbaugh v. City of Bayport 450 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The city argues that this was sufficient, citing Lindahl v. Independent School District No. 306, 270 Minn. 164, 168-169 , : Technically, a resolution is a formal expression of the will or settled decision of a deliberative assembly, while a motion is usually a proposal for action by the assembly.
Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale 435 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1989
Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Saint Paul 435 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Saint Paul 435 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
The Minnesota Supreme Court has identified the purposes of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law as (1) “to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning * * * decisions or to detect improper influences,” Lindahl v. Independent School District No. 306, 270 Minn. 164, 167 , (2) “to assure the public’s right to be informed,” Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 313 , and (3) “to affo
Itasca County Board of Commissioners v. Olson 372 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Itasca County Board of Commissioners v. Olson 372 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The purposes of the statute are: (1) “to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning board decisions or to detect improper influences,” Lindahl v. Independent School District No. 306, 270 Minn. 164, 167 , (2) “to assure the public’s right to be informed,” Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 313 , and (3) “to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the boa
Merz v. Leitch 342 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1984
Merz v. Leitch 342 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1984
We pointed out that the court previously had stated that the purposes of the statute are “(1) ‘to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning board decisions or to detect improper influences,’ Lindahl v. Independent School District No. 306, 270 Minn. 164, 167 , (2) ‘to assure the public’s right to be informed,’ Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 313 , and (3) ‘to afford
St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools 332 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1983
St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools 332 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1983
This court has stated that the purposes of the statute are: (1) “to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning board decisions or to detect improper influences,” Lindahl v. Independent School District No. 306, 270 Minn. 164, 167 , (2) “to assure the public’s right to be informed,” Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 313 , and (3) “to afford the public an opportunity to p
Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709 215 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1974
Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709 215 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1974
No. 306, 270 Minn. 164 , we allowed individuals to seek relief under § 471.705, but in these cases the question of standing was neither raised nor passed on.
Chandler v. Kroiss 190 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1971
Chandler v. Kroiss 190 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1971
No. 306, 270 Minn. 164 , 133 N. W. (2d) 23 , a challenge to the validity of a bond election was based on a statute which required a school board resolution to initiate a bond election.
Quast v. Knutson 150 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1967
Quast v. Knutson 150 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1967
No. 306, 270 Minn. 164 , 133 N. W. (2d) 23 .
McAllister v. Independent School District No. 306 149 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1967
McAllister v. Independent School District No. 306 149 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1967
No. 306, 270 Minn. 164 , 133 N. W. (2d) 23 .