Minnesota Supreme Court, 1917

State ex rel. Roerig v. City of Minneapolis

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 11, 1917

136 Minn. 479; 162 N.W. 477; 1917 Minn. LEXIS 615 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

C. D. Gould and R. S. Wiggin, for appellants., Josiah E. Brill, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1925, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

State Ex Rel. v. Houghton (Minn. 1925)
State ex rel. Beery v. Houghton (Minn. 1925)
Vorlander v. Hokenson (Minn. 1920)
State ex rel. Banner Grain Co. v. Houghton (Minn. 1919)
State ex rel. Twin City Building & Investment Co. v. Houghton (Minn. 1919)
Roerig v. Houghton (Minn. 1919)
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1926)
Junge's Appeal. (No. 2.) (Pa. Super. Ct. 1926)
Kahn Bros. v. City of Youngstown (Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas 1924)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Mandamus to compel the inspector of public buildings of the city of Minneapolis to issue to relator a permit for the erection of a four family flat building within a residential district of the city of Minneapolis. The respondents attempted to plead facts which would bring flat buildings within *480the police power, viz.: unhealthful congestion, added ñre rish, and greater difficulty in police supervision. To the answer relator interposed a general demurrer. From an order sustaining the demurrer, respondents appealed.

This court recently held, in State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226, 158 N. W. 1017, that “prohibiting the owner from erecting a store building upon land within a residential district” is beyond the police power and therefore void. This court is of the opinion that there is no tenable distinction between bulidings such as were under consideration in the case therein dealt with and an ordinary four family dwelling, and that the decision in that case is clearly applicable and controls in this case.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.