State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Delano Community Development Corp.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
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
- State ex rel. Clapp v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Longcor v. City of Red WingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
- State v. North Star Research & Development InstituteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Mohr v. Minnesota Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Nicollet National Bank v. Frisk-Turner Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.