Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bicking v. City of Minneapolis, 891 N.W.2d 304.

31 citing documents.

Kimberly Lowry, on behalf of herself and the Proposed Rule 23 Classes, et al. (A24-0849) (A24-1910) v. City … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 611, 619 (Minn. App. 2003), rev. denied (Minn. May 28, 2003); (stating that city ordinances that conflict with state law are invalid).
Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
“Preemption of municipal ordinances by state law is a legal question subject to de novo review.”
Ingrid Alexander v. City of Minneapolis, and Matrix Development LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Ingrid Alexander v. City of Minneapolis, and Matrix Development LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
DECISION “The presence of a justiciable controversy is ‘essential to [a court’s] exercise of jurisdiction.’” ().
Dan Murphy v. City of Minneapolis, Beard Manager, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Preemption of municipal ordinances by state law is a legal question subject to de novo review.” Bicking v. City of Minneapolis
Kolten Kranz, et al., Minn. 2023
because it conflicted with Article VII, Section 6, of the Minnesota Constitution); Vasseur, d at 474 (holding that the city was not required to place a proposed charter amendment on the ballot when the amendment would have established a local minimum-wage standard because it would have been an impermissible exercise of general legislative authority); (holding that the city was not required to place a proposed charter amendment on the ballot when the amendment would have required police officers
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, et al., Minn. 2020
Town of West Lakeland v. Karl E. Auleciems, Susanne M. Auleciems, Ethan Auleciems, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis
Sara Solomonson v. City of Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. Const. art XII, § 4; see Bicking v. City of Minneapolis , d 304, 306 (Minn. 2017) (explaining how a city charter is framed and amended).
Graco, Inc., Minn. 2020
John Hayden/Cross-Appellant, Paul Ostrow/Cross-Appellant v. City of Minneapolis (A19-0346), The Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board (A19-0355), The Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Bicking v. City of Minneapolis , (“A conflict exists between state law and a municipal regulation when the law and the regulation contain express or implied terms that are irreconcilable with each other, when the ordinance permits what the statute forbids, or when the ordinance forbids but the statute expressly permits.”) (quota
Calm Waters, LLC, a Limited Liability Company under the laws of Minnesota v. Town of Kroschel, a political … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Preemption of municipal ordinances by state law is a legal question subject to de novo review.”
Bruce Clark, et al., Minn. 2019
Accordingly, municipal charter provisions “must be consistent with state law and state public policy.” Bicking v. City of Minneapolis
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
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis , , 312 (Minn. 2017).
Graco, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 925 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Graco, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 925 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis , , 313 n.8 (Minn. 2017).
Butler v. City of Saint Paul 923 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Butler v. City of Saint Paul 923 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
4; Bicking v. City of Minneapolis , , 306 (Minn. 2017).
Larry Wajda v. Jamie S. Schmeichel Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis , City of Morris v. Sax Invs., Inc. , A.C.E.
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis , , 308 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
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 Bicking v. City of Minneapolis , , 312 (Minn. 2017).
The City of Minneapolis v. Christopher Doi, et al. Below, Sitescape, Inc., a North Dakota corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(quoting Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd.
Kathryn Eich v. City of Burnsville, Ted Oakland, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Municipalities generally do not have inherent powers, so they “can enact regulations only as expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which 14 have been expressly conferred.” Bicking v. City of Minneapolis , (quotations omitted).
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
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, et al v. City of Minneapolis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
n.8 (Minn. 2017) 6 (identifying various preemption theorie s, including conflict, express, and implied (field) preemption).
Eureka Township v. Teresa Lynn Petter, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 304, 312 (Minn. 2017).