Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 220.10 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1965 c 45 s 73]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1949–1994 · leading case: Ackerman v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 880 (D. Minn. 1994).
Ackerman v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 880 (D. Minn. 1994). “Designated Status Under the DOL Regulations Section 220.10 of 29 C.F.R. establishes eligibility requirements for protected employees.”
Minneapolis Street Ry. Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 86 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1957). “We believe that holding is sound since the statutes applicable in that case, §§ 220.10 and 220.11, require “a reasonable return on the fair value.”
Minneapolis Street Ry. Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 40 N.W.2d 353 (Minn. 1949). “Instead, the attempt has been made to combine state with local control — that is, commission regulation with that of the municipality — in such a manner as to secure the advantages of both.”
City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Street Ry. Co., 37 N.W.2d 533 (Minn. 1949). “So far as here material, the statute provides that the commission is granted “initial and exclusive power” to fix rates of fare to be charged by street railways for carrying passengers (§ 220.10); that “at any time” a city or street railway company may apply to the commission to…”
Minn. Stat. § 220.10(c): 1 case
Ackerman v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 880 (D. Minn. 1994). “Designated Status Under the DOL Regulations Section 220.10 of 29 C.F.R. establishes eligibility requirements for protected employees.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.