Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 340. INTOXICATING LIQUORS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 340.01 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1985 c 305 art 13 s 1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1955–2015 · leading case: Beck v. Groe, 70 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1955).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beck v. Groe, 70 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1955). · cites it 4× “2 beer, a nonintoxicating beverage under the beer act, §§ 340.01 to 340.06. The Prom, Inc., does not have a license to sell intoxicating liquor under the liquor control act nor a license to sell intoxicating malt liquor.”
Miller v. City of Saint Paul, 363 N.W.2d 806 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 340.01 (1984) confers authority to issue licenses for the sale of nonintoxicating malt liquors, and punish violations of regulations, on municipalities.”
Haaf v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Benton Cnty., 337 F. Supp. 772 (D. Minn. 1971). · cites it 10× “six years; and that prior to January, 1971, James Haaf properly presented the applications for the beer and set up licenses to the newly elected Sheriff and the County Attorney, defendants Trushenski and Burns, respectively, who arbitrarily, capriciously and wrongfully refused…”
State v. Heaney, 676 N.W.2d 698 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “The parties agree that the sample taken from Heaney and alcohol-concentration test results on the sample are not privileged under Wisconsin’s physician-patient privilege statute, which provides “no privilege concerning the results of or circumstances surrounding any chemical…”
Oberhelman v. Schultze, 371 F. Supp. 1089 (D. Minn. 1974). · cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat.Ann. § 340.01. Furthermore, “[l]ieenses .”
Trail v. Vill. of Elk River, 175 N.W.2d 916 (Minn. 1970). “The Beer Act, §§ 340.01 to 340.06, 3 specifically regulated the sale of beer.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Wayne Hexom, No. A14-1934 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2015). “Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(5), the Wisconsin statute is in conformity.”
Minn. Stat. § 340.01(lv): 1 case
State v. Heaney, 676 N.W.2d 698 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “The parties agree that the sample taken from Heaney and alcohol-concentration test results on the sample are not privileged under Wisconsin’s physician-patient privilege statute, which provides “no privilege concerning the results of or circumstances surrounding any chemical…”
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.