Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, 270 N.W.2d 749.

32 citing documents.

American National Bank of Minnesota v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority for Brainerd 773 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
American National Bank of Minnesota v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority for Brainerd 773 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Sports Facilities Comm’n, (observing distinction between revenue bonds and general obligation bonds).
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 713 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2006
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 713 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2006
So, for example, in Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n, we upheld the exemption of three communities from the 2 percent tax imposed on retail beer and liquor sales in the metropolitan area.
Unity Church of St. Paul v. State 694 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Unity Church of St. Paul v. State 694 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Sports Facilities Comm’n, for the proposition that a provision in a bill that receives a large amount of media attention does not offend the purpose behind the single-subject requirement.
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. Minnesota Twins Partnership 638 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. Minnesota Twins Partnership 638 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Sports Facilities Commn, -52 (Minn.1978).
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura 610 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2000
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura 610 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2000
Similarly, in Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n, -53 (Minn.1978), we rejected a claim that an act titled “An act relating to metropolitan government; providing for sports facilities; establishing a sports commission and prescribing its powers and duties * * *” violated the title provision of Section 17 when it empowered a commission established pursuant to the a
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
Previously, in Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n, -54 (Minn.1978), we found that the 1977 act creating the Commission served a public purpose and thus public monies could be used to finance the new stadium.
Investment Co. Institute v. Hatch 477 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Investment Co. Institute v. Hatch 477 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
revent “logrolling legislation” where different and disconnected subjects are united in one bill and passed by coalitions); see also Wass v. Anderson, 312 Minn. 394, 399-403 , -37 (1977) (“an act relating to transportation” specific enough to encompass a comprehensive bill with various provisions, including taxation provisions); Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n, (single subject provision does not require title of a bill to be a complete index of its provisions).
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of Hennepin 451 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1990
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of Hennepin 451 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1990
See, e.g., Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n, -55 (Minn.1978) (trial court found public desire for sports facility was great; stadium served a public purpose).
Henry v. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 401 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Henry v. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 401 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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.
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 381 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1986
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 381 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1986
For a recital of the history of the Metrodome
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
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
(Minn.1978) -19 (Minn.1980) where we reiterated that the legislature must be allowed to develop solutions to social problems free from undue restraints by the courts; that the courts will not disturb a legislative determination unless the classification is
City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele 291 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1980
City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele 291 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1980
Our decision in Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facility Comm’n, shows the great deference accorded to a legislative decision that a public purpose is served.
MINN. VIKINGS FOOTBALL CLUB v. Metro. Council 289 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1979
MINN. VIKINGS FOOTBALL CLUB v. Metro. Council 289 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1979
the Minnesota Supreme Court noted that the Council had the ultimate discretion, as between the State and Council to determine compliance with all conditions for bond issuance.
Eakman v. Brutger 285 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1979
Eakman v. Brutger 285 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1979
Furthermore, the principle legal issues raised — whether construction of a stadium constitutes a proper public purpose and whether adequate financial safeguards have been imposed — were resolved contrary to plaintiffs’ position in Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n.