Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Flowers v. Bartlett, 68 N.W. 976.

25 citing documents.

McDaniel v. United Hardware Distributing Co. 469 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1991
Overruled McDaniel v. United Hardware Distributing Co. 469 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1991
See Flowers v. Bartlett, 66 Minn. 213, 216 , 68 N.W.
Agricultural Insurance v. Midwest Technical Development Corp. 130 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1964
Agricultural Insurance v. Midwest Technical Development Corp. 130 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1964
3 Flowers v. Bartlett, 66 Minn. 213 , ; State ex rel.
Dworsky v. Herbst 95 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1959
Dworsky v. Herbst 95 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1959
4 See, also, Flowers v. Bartlett, 66 Minn. 213 , ; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Schmitt v. Hoffmann 46 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1951
State Ex Rel. Schmitt v. Hoffmann 46 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1951
Flowers v. Bartlett, 66 Minn. 213 , ; State ex rel.
Olesen v. Retzlaff 238 N.W. 12 Minn. 1931
State Ex Rel. Byram v. Johnson 217 N.W. 351 Minn. 1927
State Ex Rel. Byram v. Johnson 217 N.W. 351 Minn. 1927
Although not directly in point see Flowers v. Bartlett, 66 Minn. 213 , ; and Bell v. Jarvis, 98 Minn. 109 , , 8 Ann. Cas.
State ex rel. Hanson v. District Court 188 N.W. 161 Minn. 1922
State ex rel. Hanson v. District Court 188 N.W. 161 Minn. 1922
Flowers v. Bartlett, 66 Minn. 213 , ; State ex rel.
Delasca v. Grimes 174 N.W. 523 Minn. 1919
Delasca v. Grimes 174 N.W. 523 Minn. 1919
The question-was also considered in Flowers v. Bartlett, 66 Minn. 213 , , and in Casserly v. Morrow, 101 Minn. 16 , .
Casserly v. Morrow 111 N.W. 654 Minn. 1907
Overruled Casserly v. Morrow 111 N.W. 654 Minn. 1907
Flowers v. Bartlett, 66 Minn. 213 , .
Bell v. Jarvis 107 N.W. 547 Minn. 1906
Bell v. Jarvis 107 N.W. 547 Minn. 1906
Hurning v. Hurning, 80 Minn. 373 , ; Flowers v. Bartlett, 66 Minn. 213 , .
State ex rel. Hagan v. District Court 95 N.W. 591 Minn. 1903
State ex rel. Hagan v. District Court 95 N.W. 591 Minn. 1903
Flowers v. Bartlett, 66 Minn. 213 , ; State v. District Court of Meeker Co., 77 Minn. 302 , ; Hurning v. Hurning, 80 Minn. 373 , .
State ex rel. Minneapolis Threshing-Machine Co. v. District Court 79 N.W. 960 Minn. 1899
State ex rel. Minneapolis Threshing-Machine Co. v. District Court 79 N.W. 960 Minn. 1899
Flowers v. Bartlett, 66 Minn. 213 , .
Potter v. Holmes 75 N.W. 591 Minn. 1898
Potter v. Holmes 75 N.W. 591 Minn. 1898
28, provides : “If the county designated for that purpose in the complaint is not the proper county, the action may notwithstanding be tried therein, unless the defendant before the time for answering expires demands in writing that the trial be had in the proper county, which demand shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the defendant” as to his place of residence, etc. In Flowers v. Bartlett, 66 Minn. 213 , , we held that, when this section was complied with, the case was ipso facto removed t