Legal Opinion

Borgelt v. City of Minneapolis

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 21, 1965No. 39556PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Knutson, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial.

The city of Minneapolis is a city of the first class governed by a home rule charter. Plaintiff Marvin F. Borgelt is a resident and taxpayer of the city of Minneapolis who operates asphalt mixing plants at Inver Grove and Red Wing, Minnesota. Plaintiff intervenor, J. V. Gleason, is a resident and taxpayer of the city of Minneapolis and operates an asphalt mixing plant in St. Louis Park.

For many years the city of Minneapolis has owned and operated two asphalt plants, one since 1927 and the other…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Visina v. FreemanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  2. Village of Edina v. JosephSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  3. Griswold v. County of RamseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  4. Colwell v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
  5. Schneider v. City of MenashaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Birge v. Town of EastonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  2. Abex Corporation v. Commissioner of TaxationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  3. Village of Medford v. WilsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  4. Webb v. City of MeridianMississippi Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Douglas v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API