Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 143 N.W.2d 813.

107 citing documents.

Buss v. Johnson 624 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 352
Hannan v. City of Minneapolis 623 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Hannan v. City of Minneapolis 623 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
e”; (b) more specifically, an ordinance conflicts with state law if it “permits what the statute forbids”; (c) similarly, there is conflict if the ordinance “forbids what the statute expressly permits”; and (d) “no conflict exists where the ordinance, though different, is merely additional and complementary to or in aid and furtherance of the statute.” Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 352 , -17 (1966) (citations omitted).
Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors 615 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors 615 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
The first, referred to specifically as “preemption,” is based on “occupation of the field.” Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 356
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale 588 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale 588 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 356 , (defining preemption as the concept of “occupation of the field”).
Canadian Connection v. New Prairie Township 581 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Canadian Connection v. New Prairie Township 581 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Mangold Midioest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 356
City of Birchwood Village v. Simes 576 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
City of Birchwood Village v. Simes 576 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 356
Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan 560 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1997
Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan 560 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1997
As a limited statutory creation, the city has no inherent powers beyond those “expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly conferred.” Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357
Blue Earth County Pork Producers, Inc. v. County of Blue Earth 558 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Blue Earth County Pork Producers, Inc. v. County of Blue Earth 558 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 356
Lilly v. City of Minneapolis 527 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lilly v. City of Minneapolis 527 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Respondent Lilly relies on the analysis contained in a more recent case, Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347
Board of Supervisors v. ValAdCo 504 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Board of Supervisors v. ValAdCo 504 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 356
Minnesota Agricultural Aircraft Ass'n v. Township of Mantrap 498 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Minnesota Agricultural Aircraft Ass'n v. Township of Mantrap 498 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 356
State v. Gonzales 483 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Gonzales 483 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 356-57 , -20 (1966) (preemption doctrine applied in “drawing line between” federal and state powers, state and municipality powers).
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 475 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 475 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 361 , -22 (1966).
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Granite Falls 463 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Granite Falls 463 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357
County of Wright v. Kennedy 415 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
County of Wright v. Kennedy 415 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 350-52 , -17 (1966).
State v. Westrum 380 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Westrum 380 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 352
State v. Apple Valley Redi-Mix, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Apple Valley Redi-Mix, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347 , the Minnesota Supreme Court enunciated the general principles applicable to this case: (a) As a general rule, conflicts which would render an ordinance invalid exist only when both the ordinance and the statute contain express or implied terms that are irreconcilable with each other.
Northwest Residence, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Center 352 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Northwest Residence, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Center 352 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 358
Lewis Ex Rel. Welles v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 320 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1982
Lewis Ex Rel. Welles v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 320 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1982
Whether a conflict exists may be determined by the general principles we stated in Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347 , : (e) [A] conflict exists where the ordinance forbids what the statute expressly permits.
St. Paul Citizens for Human Rights v. City Council of St. Paul 289 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1979
St. Paul Citizens for Human Rights v. City Council of St. Paul 289 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1979
This was consistent with the statute.” Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 352 , -817 (1966).
Lewis Ex Rel. Quinn v. Ford Motor Co. 282 N.W.2d 874 Minn. 1979
Lewis Ex Rel. Quinn v. Ford Motor Co. 282 N.W.2d 874 Minn. 1979
The leading case set *877 ting out the general principles governing the resolution of the issue is Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347
City of Minneapolis v. Buschette 240 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1976
City of Minneapolis v. Buschette 240 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1976
People v. Utica Daw’s Drug Co. 16 App. Div. 2d 12, 225 N. Y. S. 2d 128 (1962); Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347
City of St. Paul v. Olson 220 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1974
City of St. Paul v. Olson 220 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1974
not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter; provided, that when any local ordinance regulating traffic covers the same subject for which a penalty is provided for in this chapter, then the penalty provided for violation of said local ordinance shall be identical with the penalty provided for in this chapter for the same offense.” As we held in Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 352 , in which we discussed in detail the matters of preemption and conflict, “* * *
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Air. Com'n of Mpls. & St. P. 216 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 1974
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Air. Com'n of Mpls. & St. P. 216 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 1974
Paul, 272 Minn. 256, 259 , and Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347 , *492 357
State v. Sharich 209 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1973
State v. Sharich 209 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1973
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347
State v. Vadnais 202 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1972