uniform rule in Minnesota

2018The stated purpose of North Carolina law was to avoid consumer confusion by ensuring "a single uniform standard." Id. at 349 , 97 S.Ct. at 2444 .

2018The stated purpose of North Carolina law was to avoid consumer confusion by ensuring "a single uniform standard." Id. at 349 , 97 S.Ct. at 2444 .

2010Noting that section 645.15 is a codification of a common-law time-computation method, we stated in Nelson that “in making [section] 645.15 expressive of the common-law rule, the legislature intended to provide a certain and uniform rule for the computation of periods of time prescribed or fixed in all statutes, except in those cases where the statutory terms affirmatively indicate the contrary.” 227 Minn, at 181-82, 34 N.W.2d at 643 .

2005Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904 , 117 S.Ct. 1793 .

2005Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904 , 117 S.Ct. 1793 .

1998At any rate, they constitute the best regulation the law can establish.” Id. at 193 , 251 N.W.2d at 134 (quoting 3 Cooley, Taxation (4 ed.), § 1062, p. 2140).

1998At any rate, they constitute the best regulation the law can establish.” Id. at 193 , 251 N.W.2d at 134 (quoting 3 Cooley, Taxation (4 ed.), § 1062, p. 2140).

1985While the court could have allowed the challenge, we do not believe that the court clearly abused its discretion in not doing so and we therefore conclude that defendant is not entitled to a new trial on this ground. 1 The advantages of the uni *312 form rule are discussed as follows in III ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, § 15-2.6 at 15.70 (1980): The Supreme Court observed in Swain v. Alabama [ 380 U.S. 202, 218 , 85 S.Ct. 824, 834 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965)] that the approach [used in the uniform rule], as opposed to other types of peremptory challenge, has been praised “as a fairer system

1985While the court could have allowed the challenge, we do not believe that the court clearly abused its discretion in not doing so and we therefore conclude that defendant is not entitled to a new trial on this ground. 1 The advantages of the uni *312 form rule are discussed as follows in III ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, § 15-2.6 at 15.70 (1980): The Supreme Court observed in Swain v. Alabama [ 380 U.S. 202, 218 , 85 S.Ct. 824, 834 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965)] that the approach [used in the uniform rule], as opposed to other types of peremptory challenge, has been praised “as a fairer system

1980Id.

1964Lindsey v. Tollison, 100 S. C. 165, 174, 84 S. E. 819, 821 , the court held: “* * * [I]n determining what was or was not done by the Senate, the Journal must be considered as a whole, as any other record would be.” In Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 , the court held: “[The] Legislature is empowered while it is in session to make its records speak truth and to record in its journal true history of proceedings, and proceedings as written and approved by Legislature while in session are controlling data as to session’s proceedings.” It is the uniform rule that parliamentary rules, such

1964Lindsey v. Tollison, 100 S. C. 165, 174, 84 S. E. 819, 821 , the court held: “* * * [I]n determining what was or was not done by the Senate, the Journal must be considered as a whole, as any other record would be.” In Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 , the court held: “[The] Legislature is empowered while it is in session to make its records speak truth and to record in its journal true history of proceedings, and proceedings as written and approved by Legislature while in session are controlling data as to session’s proceedings.” It is the uniform rule that parliamentary rules, such

1964Lindsey v. Tollison, 100 S. C. 165, 174, 84 S. E. 819, 821 , the court held: “* * * [I]n determining what was or was not done by the Senate, the Journal must be considered as a whole, as any other record would be.” In Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 , the court held: “[The] Legislature is empowered while it is in session to make its records speak truth and to record in its journal true history of proceedings, and proceedings as written and approved by Legislature while in session are controlling data as to session’s proceedings.” It is the uniform rule that parliamentary rules, such

1964Lindsey v. Tollison, 100 S.C. 165, 174 , 84 S.E. 819, 821 , the court held: *168 "* * * [I]n determining what was or was not done by the Senate, the Journal must be considered as a whole, as any other record would be." In Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 , the court held: "[The] Legislature is empowered while it is in session to make its records speak truth and to record in its journal true history of proceedings, and proceedings as written and approved by Legislature while in session are controlling data as to session's proceedings." It is the uniform rule that parliamentary rules,

1949Section 465.09 (c. 391, § 1), as we have held in the Freeman case ( 219 Minn. 202 , 17 N. W. [2d] 364) and the cases there cited, was intended to prescribe a uniform rule throughout the state, and, like its predecessor (L. 1897, c. 248), operated, under the rule of the Nicol case ( 80 Minn. 415 , 83 N. W. 375 ), to repeal and supersede all charter provisions of the city of St.

1949Section 465.09 (c. 391, § 1), as we have held in the Freeman case ( 219 Minn. 202 , 17 N. W. [2d] 364) and the cases there cited, was intended to prescribe a uniform rule throughout the state, and, like its predecessor (L. 1897, c. 248), operated, under the rule of the Nicol case ( 80 Minn. 415 , 83 N. W. 375 ), to repeal and supersede all charter provisions of the city of St.

1949Freeman v. City of Minneapolis, 219 Minn. 202 , 17 N. W. (2d) 364 .

1949Section 465.09 (c. 391, § 1), as we have held in the Freeman case ( 219 Minn. 202 , 17 N. W. [2d] 364) and the cases there cited, was intended to prescribe a uniform rule throughout the state, and, like its predecessor (L. 1897, c. 248), operated, under the rule of the Nicol case ( 80 Minn. 415 , 83 N. W. 375 ), to repeal and supersede all charter provisions of the city of St.

1945We have held in several cases that the legislative act in respect to the method and procedure of presenting claims against municipalities was “intended to establish a uniform rule which should apply to all municipalities, thus avoiding the confusion arising out of the many dissimilar provisions contained in their various charters.” Johnson v. City of Duluth, 133 Minn. 405, 408 , 158 N. W. 616, 617 .

1945We have held in several cases that the legislative act in respect to the method and procedure of presenting claims against municipalities was “intended to establish a uniform rule which should apply to all municipalities, thus avoiding the confusion arising out of the many dissimilar provisions contained in their various charters.” Johnson v. City of Duluth, 133 Minn. 405, 408 , 158 N. W. 616, 617 .

1926After prescribing the fees in naturalization proceedings, the act, in the fourth paragraph of section 13, provides that the clerk collecting such fees “is hereby authorized to retain one-half * * *; the remaining one-half * * * shall be accounted for in their quarterly accounts, which they are hereby required to render the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization.” On the point here involved, that law did not receive construction at the hands of the Supreme Court of the United States until 1913, when it was dealt with in Mulcrevy v. City and County of San Francisco, 231 U. S. 669 , 34 Sup. Ct.

1904Loan Assn. v. Topeka, supra; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487 , 1 Sup. Ct. 442; Cole v. La Grange, 113 U. S. 6 ; Allen v. Inhabitants, 60 Me. 124 ; Weismer v. Village, 64 N. Y. 91 ; In re Eureka B.

1904Loan Assn. v. Topeka, supra; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487 , 1 Sup. Ct. 442; Cole v. La Grange, 113 U. S. 6 ; Allen v. Inhabitants, 60 Me. 124 ; Weismer v. Village, 64 N. Y. 91 ; In re Eureka B.

1904Loan Assn. v. Topeka, supra; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487 , 1 Sup. Ct. 442; Cole v. La Grange, 113 U. S. 6 ; Allen v. Inhabitants, 60 Me. 124 ; Weismer v. Village, 64 N. Y. 91 ; In re Eureka B.

1904Scarth v. Security, 75 Iowa, 348 , 39 N. W. 658 ; Pierce v. Travelers, 34 Wis. 389 ; Billings v. Accident, 64 Vt. 78 , 24 Atl. 656; De Gogorza v. Knickerbocker, 65 N. Y. 232 ; Riley v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins.

1904Scarth v. Security, 75 Iowa, 348 , 39 N. W. 658 ; Pierce v. Travelers, 34 Wis. 389 ; Billings v. Accident, 64 Vt. 78 , 24 Atl. 656; De Gogorza v. Knickerbocker, 65 N. Y. 232 ; Riley v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins.

1904Loan Assn. v. Topeka, supra; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487 , 1 Sup. Ct. 442; Cole v. La Grange, 113 U. S. 6 ; Allen v. Inhabitants, 60 Me. 124 ; Weismer v. Village, 64 N. Y. 91 ; In re Eureka B.

1904Scarth v. Security, 75 Iowa, 348 , 39 N. W. 658 ; Pierce v. Travelers, 34 Wis. 389 ; Billings v. Accident, 64 Vt. 78 , 24 Atl. 656; De Gogorza v. Knickerbocker, 65 N. Y. 232 ; Riley v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins.