Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite City of Mankato v. Fowler, 20 N.W. 361.

34 citing documents.

State v. Northern Raceway Corp. 381 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Northern Raceway Corp. 381 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364, 366 , 20 N.W.
Lyons v. City of Minneapolis 63 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1954
Lyons v. City of Minneapolis 63 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1954
Remick v. Clousing, 205 Minn. 296 , , 123 A. L. R. 465; City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.
Minneapolis Street Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis 52 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1952
Minneapolis Street Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis 52 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1952
In City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364, 366 , , we said: “* * * What is a reasonable license fee must depend largely upon the sound discretion of the city council, having reference to all the circumstances and necessities of the case.
Hendricks v. City of Minneapolis 290 N.W. 428 Minn. 1940
Hendricks v. City of Minneapolis 290 N.W. 428 Minn. 1940
City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , ; State ex rel.
Orr v. City of Rochester 258 N.W. 569 Minn. 1935
Orr v. City of Rochester 258 N.W. 569 Minn. 1935
City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , ; Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 175 Minn. 276 , ; Id.
Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis 225 N.W. 904 Minn. 1929
Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis 225 N.W. 904 Minn. 1929
R. 462; State v. Finch, 78 Minn. 118 , , 46 L. R. A. 437; City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , ; City of Duluth v. Krupp, 46 Minn. 435 , ; Higgins v. Lacroix, 119 Minn. 145 , , 41 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Wright v. May 149 N.W. 9 Minn. 1914
Wright v. May 149 N.W. 9 Minn. 1914
City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , ; City of Duluth v. Krupp, 46 Minn. 435 , ; Village of Minneota v. Martin, 124 Minn. 498 , .
Village of Minneota v. Martin 145 N.W. 383 Minn. 1914
Village of Minneota v. Martin 145 N.W. 383 Minn. 1914
It is insisted that this case is ruled by City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , , wherein the business of an auctioneer is designated as a lawful and useful one.
Higgins v. Lacroix 137 N.W. 417 Minn. 1912
Higgins v. Lacroix 137 N.W. 417 Minn. 1912
*150 “In respect to exhibitions, amusements, etc., a larger discretion on the part of the municipal corporation is recognized than in the case of trades and useful occupations, and the rule has, of course, a still broader application where the business is such as is liable to degenerate into a nuisance, or such as tends to promote disorder or crime,” is stated in City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , .
State v. Jensen 100 N.W. 644 Minn. 1904
State v. Jensen 100 N.W. 644 Minn. 1904
City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , ; In re White, 43 Minn. 250 , ; City of Duluth v. Krupp, 46 Minn. 435 , ; City of Duluth v. Marsh, 71 Minn. 248 , .
Drew v. Tifft 81 N.W. 839 Minn. 1900
Drew v. Tifft 81 N.W. 839 Minn. 1900
City of Rochester v. Upman, 19 Minn. 78 (108); State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 ; City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , ; City of Duluth v. Marsh, 71 Minn. 248 , ; State v. Finch, 78 Minn. 118 , .
City of Duluth v. Marsh 73 N.W. 962 Minn. 1898
City of Duluth v. Marsh 73 N.W. 962 Minn. 1898
City of Man *250 kato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , ; In re White, 43 Minn. 250 , ; City of Duluth v. Krupp, 46 Minn. 435 , .
Willis v. Standard Oil Co. 52 N.W. 652 Minn. 1892
Willis v. Standard Oil Co. 52 N.W. 652 Minn. 1892
City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
City of Duluth v. Krupp 49 N.W. 235 Minn. 1891
City of Duluth v. Krupp 49 N.W. 235 Minn. 1891
See City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
Moore v. City of Minneapolis 45 N.W. 719 Minn. 1890
Moore v. City of Minneapolis 45 N.W. 719 Minn. 1890
See City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
In re White 45 N.W. 232 Minn. 1890
In re White 45 N.W. 232 Minn. 1890
As we said in City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
City of St. Paul v. Stoltz 22 N.W. 634 Minn. 1885
City of St. Paul v. Stoltz 22 N.W. 634 Minn. 1885
Paul v. Traeger, 25 Minn. 248 ; *235 City of Mankato v. Fowler, 32 Minn. 364 ; State v. Municipal Court of City of St.