Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 143 N.W.2d 813.
-
State v. Vadnais
202 N.W.2d 657
Minn. 1972
1 See, also, Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 361 , People v. Utica Daw’s Drug Co. Inc. 16 App. Div. 2d 12, 225 N. Y. S. 2d 128, 4 A. L. R. 3d 393 (1962); People v. Walker, 14 N. Y. 2d 901, 252 N. Y. S. 2d 96, 200 N. E. 2d 779 (1964).
- City of Saint Paul v. Franklin 175 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1970
-
City of Saint Paul v. Franklin
175 N.W.2d 16
Minn. 1970
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347 , 143 N. W. (2d) 813 .
- State v. Target Stores, Inc. 156 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1968
-
State v. Target Stores, Inc.
156 N.W.2d 908
Minn. 1968
Louis, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, 274 Minn. 471 , 144 N. W. (2d) 552 , and Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347 , 143 N. W. (2d) 813 , that like legislation in municipal ordinances was not in conflict with the general statute but, rather, in harmony with it.
- G.E.M. of St. Louis, Inc. v. City of Bloomington 144 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1966
-
G.E.M. of St. Louis, Inc. v. City of Bloomington
144 N.W.2d 552
Minn. 1966
Our decision in Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347 , 143 N. W. (2d) 813 , establishes the absence of invalidating conflict between the statute and such ordinances as the one before us and the lack of preemption of this field by state legislation.