Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Delano Community Development Corp.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 17, 1996No. C6-96-1376Published

1DissentKlaphake, Judge

I respectfully dissent. Although I agree with the majority on the legal principles, I disagree with its application of these principles and conclude that DCDC’s declared purpose and conduct shows that it is a not-for-profit corporation.

In re Red River Valley Livestock Ass’n, 235 Minn. 267, 271, 50 N.W.2d 287, 289 (1951) reaffirmed that the key to determining a corporation’s nature and status is its articles of incorporation. Read in their entirety,1 DCDC’s articles unambiguously identify the corporate purpose and intended beneficiaries: to promote the economic well-being of the City of Delano…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Clapp v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
  2. Longcor v. City of Red WingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
  3. State v. North Star Research & Development InstituteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
  4. Mohr v. Minnesota Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
  5. Nicollet National Bank v. Frisk-Turner Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898

2 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