State ex rel. Lachtman v. Houghton
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Upon the relation of Samuel Lachtman the district court for Hennepin county granted its alternative writ of mandamus directing James G. Houghton, as inspector of buildings for the city of Minneapolis, to issue to the relator a permit for the electrical wiring of a certain building described in the writ or show cause why he had not done so.
Read the full summary
Upon the relation of Samuel Lachtman the district court for Hennepin county granted its alternative writ of mandamus directing James G. Houghton, as inspector of buildings for the city of Minneapolis, to issue to the relator a permit for the electrical wiring of a certain building described in the writ or show cause why he had not done so. The answer of respondent set up the ordinance of the city council regulating the construction of buildings within that city and an ordinance amending the former ordinance passed on August 20, 1915, designating certain districts as industrial districts and…
1DissentHallam, J.
I dissent.
I will not concern myself with the question whether a building permit once issued can be revoked, or whether under the facts in this case plaintiff acquired any vested rights by reason of the action or nonaction of city officials.
I address myself to the main question, whether the state has the constitutional power to regulate the location of grocery stores in a large city. We need not look in the Constitution to find †1, power. The power exists unless it has been taken away. The contention is that such regulation violates the portion of the Fourteenth amendment to the Federal…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Hadacheck v. SebastianSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Noble State Bank v. HaskellSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Eubank v. City of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Gundling v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.