Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kuhlman, 729 N.W.2d 577.

31 citing documents.

Bryce Holstad, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Generally, municipalities have no inherent powers and possess only such powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly conferred.” (quotation omitted).
JMH Land Development Company LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Municipalities generally “have no inherent powers and possess only such powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly conferred.” (quotation omitted).
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, et al., Minn. 2020
Graco, Inc., Minn. 2020
(quoting State v. Kuhlman , ).
Bruce Clark, et al., Minn. 2019
Municipalities “ ‘have no inherent powers’ ” and can enact regulations only as “ ‘expressly 9 conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly conferred.’ ” (quoting Mangold Midwest Co. v. Vill.
Minn. Chamber Commerce v. City of Minneapolis 928 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minn. Chamber Commerce v. City of Minneapolis 928 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Kuhlman , , 4 (Minn. App. 2006), aff'd
Berkeley Read Lewis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Court Park Co. v. County of Hennepin , n.4 (Minn. 2018) (declining to address issue when case decided on other grounds ()).
Johnson v. State 925 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Johnson v. State 925 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Court Park Co. v. County of Hennepin , , 645 n.4 (Minn. 2018) (declining to address issue when case decided on other grounds (citing State v. Kuhlman , , 584 (Minn. 2007) )).
Graco, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 925 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jennissen v. City of Bloomington 913 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 2018
Jennissen v. City of Bloomington 913 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 2018
see also State v. Kuhlman , , 4 (Minn. App. 2006) (citing Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield , 274 Minn. 347 , , 816 (1966) ), aff'd
Court Park Company, et al., Minn. 2018
(declining to address an issue that would not alter the outcome of the case).
Jennissen v. City of Bloomington 904 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jennissen v. City of Bloomington 904 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-64 (Minn. 2008) (discussing three types of preemption in context of federal law preempting state law); aff'd, (explaining three ways state statute may preempt local ordinance).
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Arturo Martinez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See McCaughtry , d at 337 (declaratory judgment action); State v. Kuhlman , 8-79 (Minn. 2007) (challenging enforcement of stoplights through use of cameras); State v. McElroy , (challeng ing Minneapolis noise ordinance as overbroad and vague), review denied (Minn. June 26, 2013).
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis 891 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2017
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis 891 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2017
City of Morris v. Sax Invs., Inc., (“The application of statutes, administrative regulations, and local ordinances to undisputed facts is a legal conclusion and is reviewed de novo.”).
State of Minnesota v. James Nils Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Nils Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Brian Lee 852 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 2014
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Brian Lee 852 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 2014
of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 352, d 15 813, 817 (1966); (holding that “no conflict exists” when an ordinance “covers specifically what the statute covers generally”).
Lakes Area Business Ass'n v. City of Forest Lake 842 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lakes Area Business Ass'n v. City of Forest Lake 842 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Generally, municipalities have no inherent powers and possess only such powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly conferred.” (quotation omitted).
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Lee 832 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Lee 832 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-5 (Minn.App.2006), aff'd
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“ ‘[M]unicipalities have no inherent powers and possess only such powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly conferred.’” (quoting Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357 , ).
City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2008
City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2008
(applying the specific language of a state statute imposing a uniformity requirement on traffic regulations to determine the validity of a municipal ordinance authorizing photo enforcement of traffic control signals).