Legal Opinion
Thul v. State
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 11, 2003No. C9-02-1365PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KALITOWSKI, Judge.
Appellant Steven M. Thul challenges the denial of his petition for posteonviction relief for violating City of Ham Lake, Minn., City Code § 9-470 (2000). The posteonviction court determined that the ordinance at issue did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and was not constitutionally void for vagueness.
FACTS
In October of 1998, appellant received the first in a series of letters from the City of Ham Lake (Ham Lake), informing appellant that the city had received complaints regarding appellant’s operation of a helicopter from his…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Honn v. City of Coon RapidsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Condor Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation v. City of St. Paul, a Municipal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1990
- Zylka v. City of CrystalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. ReynuaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
- Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012
- STUDOR, INC. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- Tomas Rey, et al. v. LCMC Healthcare Partners, LLC, et al.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2025