Legal Opinion
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided March 15, 2017No. A16-1379PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
Appellants David Bicking, Michelle Gross, Janet Nye, and Jill Waite (collectively, “Bicking”) are members of a citizen group in Minneapolis that they contend they formed to advocate for measures to improve policing and police accountability in the City. In July 2016, Bicking’s group submitted a petition to the Minneapolis City Council for consideration of a question regarding a proposed amendment to the Minneapolis City Charter to be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election. The amendment, as proposed by Bicking’s group, would require City police officers to obtain…
3Cases cited37 opinions
- New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- In re the Senate of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1865
- State v. RickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of RichfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
- State v. MartinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by9 opinions
- Cruz-Guzman v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- Jennissen v. City of BloomingtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- Jennissen v. City of BloomingtonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- Graco, Inc. v. City of MinneapolisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2019
- Butler v. City of Saint PaulCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2019
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.