Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Beery v. Houghton
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided July 3, 1925No. 24,812PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
Mandamus to compel the defendant, inspector of buildings, to issue to the relator a permit for a four-family flat building in Minneapolis. There was judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff appeals.
By the comprehensive zoning ordinance of Minneapolis a district is created in which the erection of four-family flat buildings is prohibited. The relator’s property is in that district. The ordinance was enacted under the authority of L. 1921, p. 267, c. 217, as amended by L. 1923, p. 521, c. 364. Whether the ordinance is constitutional is the question.
In State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226, 158…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Hadacheck v. SebastianSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Patsone v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Thomas Cusack Co. v. City of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Reinman v. City of Little RockSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- State Ex Rel. Saveland Park Holding Corp. v. WielandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minnesota, Inc. v. Village of MinnetonkaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
- Jennings' AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Blaisdell v. Home Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.