Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 410.01 (2026)

Cities, Classes

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Cities are hereby divided, for legislative purposes, into classes as follows:

First class -- Those having more than 100,000 inhabitants provided that once a city is defined to be of the first class, it shall not be reclassified unless its population decreases by 25 percent from the census figures which last qualified the city for inclusion in the class;

Second class -- Those having more than 20,000 and not more than 100,000 inhabitants;

Third class -- Those having more than 10,000 and not more than 20,000 inhabitants, and

Fourth class -- Those having not more than 10,000 inhabitants.

Changes in classification resulting from any future national census shall take effect upon the filing of certified copies of the census in the office of the secretary of state as provided in section 600.18. Meanwhile the council or other governing body shall take measures for the election of proper officials and for dividing the city into wards, if necessary, and otherwise prepare for the coming change.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases, 1976–2020 · leading case: Emerson v. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. 199, 809 N.W.2d 679 (Minn. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Emerson v. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. 199, 809 N.W.2d 679 (Minn. 2012). · cites it 4× “" - Minn.Stat. § 410.01 (2010). Inver Grove Heights is not a city of the first class.”

City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge, 788 N.W.2d 522 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 410.01 (2008). Minn.Stat. § 484.”

City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge, 800 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2011). “Minnesota Statutes § 410.01 (2010) defines first-class cities as those with more than 100,-000 inhabitants; second-class cities as those with more than 20,000 and not more than 100,000 inhabitants; third-class cities as those with more than 10,000 and not more than 20,000…”

Flaherty v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 2144, 577 N.W.2d 229 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 410.01 (1996). 4 . The school district relies on this court’s unpublished decision in Rabe v.”

Lucio v. Sch. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 625, 574 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 410.01 (1996). Section 125.17, therefore, applies to teachers in the Saint Paul school district.”

Hyland v. Metro. Airports Comm'n, 538 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 410.01 (1994) (defining cities of the first class).”

Gadey v. City of Minneapolis, 517 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 410.01 (1992) (defining cities of “first class” as having more than 100,000 inhabitants).”

Emerson v. Sch. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. 199, 782 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “2 (2008); see Minn.Stat. § 410.01 (2008) (defining cities of the first class).”

Murphy v. St. Paul Pub. Schs., Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 625, 795 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “2; see Minn.Stat. § 410.01 (2010) (defining cities of the first class).”

Jennissen v. City of Bloomington, 904 N.W.2d 234 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “A city may frame a charter for its own government in a manner as provided under Minn. Stat. §§ 410.01 -.33 (2016), and it may provide for a scheme of municipal government that is not inconsistent with the Minnesota Constitution.”

Cloud v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 38, 508 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 410.01 (1992). 3 . Supervisory, coordinator, or director licensure requires completion of a master's degree or a graduate school statement certifying that the applicant has completed at least one-half of a program leading to the specialist or doctorate de-grce.”

State v. Peralta, 598 N.W.2d 698 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “Thompson, Minnesota Practice § 410.01, at 186 (2d ed.1992) (stating in contrast to Fed.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

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.