Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 310. CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED TO ACQUIRE AND MANAGE PUBLIC LANDS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 310.06 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1947 c 218 s 1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1955–2016 · leading case: Staeheli v. City of St. Paul, 732 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Staeheli v. City of St. Paul, 732 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “Likewise, we cite the version of section 310.06 enacted in 1999 and substantially unchanged until November 2006.”
Beck v. Groe, 70 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1955). · cites it 2× “” Section 310.06 of the beer act provides under the heading “Non-intoxicating malt liquors excluded”: “Sections 310.”
Hymanson v. City of St. Paul, 329 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 2× “Legislative Code § 310.06, subd. 2(7) (1981). Plaintiffs alleged that notice was inadequate to inform them of this possible ground for revocation.”
Bourbon Bar & Cafe Corp. v. City of St. Paul, 466 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “, Legislative Code § 310.06(b)(6)(h) (1990). However, Minnesota statutes expressly prohibit the use of a discharge or dismissal as a “conviction” for any purpose.”
Perkins v. City of St. Paul, 982 F. Supp. 652 (D. Minnesota 1997). · cites it 3× “Paul City Council in applying § 310.06 violated this proscription. Plaintiff, seems to argue that because the St.”
DeLite Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 167 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (D. Minnesota 2001). “§ 310.06 (“The council is authorized to take adverse action .”
Bal, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 469 N.W.2d 341 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “, Legislative Code § 310.06(b)(8) (1987). In his memorandum the AU concluded the record contains adequate evidence of disturbing conditions in the Wabasha Bar neighborhood which, if caused by negligent management of the bar, would constitute a nuisance.”
In the Matter of all Licenses Held by Pet Motortech, Inc., d/b/a Pet Auto Repair, for the premises at 44 Acker Street in St. Paul, Minnesota. (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). “Paul department of safety and inspections testified that, on the day in question, he inspected Pet Auto and observed a newly-painted vehicle on the premises.”
— Minn. Stat. § 310.06(b)(5)(6) — 1 case
In the Matter of all Licenses Held by Pet Motortech, Inc., d/b/a Pet Auto Repair, for the premises at 44 Acker Street in St. Paul, Minnesota. (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). “Paul department of safety and inspections testified that, on the day in question, he inspected Pet Auto and observed a newly-painted vehicle on the premises.”
— Minn. Stat. § 310.06(b)(6)(a) — 1 case
Staeheli v. City of St. Paul, 732 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). “Likewise, we cite the version of section 310.06 enacted in 1999 and substantially unchanged until November 2006.”
— Minn. Stat. § 310.06(b)(6)(h) — 1 case
Bourbon Bar & Cafe Corp. v. City of St. Paul, 466 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “, Legislative Code § 310.06(b)(6)(h) (1990). However, Minnesota statutes expressly prohibit the use of a discharge or dismissal as a “conviction” for any purpose.”
— Minn. Stat. § 310.06(b)(6)(i) — 1 case
Bourbon Bar & Cafe Corp. v. City of St. Paul, 466 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “, Legislative Code § 310.06(b)(6)(h) (1990). However, Minnesota statutes expressly prohibit the use of a discharge or dismissal as a “conviction” for any purpose.”
— Minn. Stat. § 310.06(b)(6)(ii) — 1 case
Bourbon Bar & Cafe Corp. v. City of St. Paul, 466 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “, Legislative Code § 310.06(b)(6)(h) (1990). However, Minnesota statutes expressly prohibit the use of a discharge or dismissal as a “conviction” for any purpose.”
— Minn. Stat. § 310.06(b)(7) — 1 case
Perkins v. City of St. Paul, 982 F. Supp. 652 (D. Minnesota 1997). “Paul City Council in applying § 310.06 violated this proscription. Plaintiff, seems to argue that because the St.”
— Minn. Stat. § 310.06(b)(8) — 2 cases
Bal, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 469 N.W.2d 341 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “, Legislative Code § 310.06(b)(8) (1987). In his memorandum the AU concluded the record contains adequate evidence of disturbing conditions in the Wabasha Bar neighborhood which, if caused by negligent management of the bar, would constitute a nuisance.”
Perkins v. City of St. Paul, 982 F. Supp. 652 (D. Minnesota 1997). “Paul City Council in applying § 310.06 violated this proscription. Plaintiff, seems to argue that because the St.”
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.