Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fletcher v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co., 69 N.W. 1085.

25 citing documents.

Court of Appeals Bryce Holstad, et al v. Town of May Hennesy, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in … Minn. 2026
Co., (discussing strict construction on behalf of landowner with respect to railway’s legal right to condemn land for particular purpose).
In re the Condemnation of Certain Lands ex rel. City of White Bear Lake Housing & Redevelopment Authority 555 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In re the Condemnation of Certain Lands ex rel. City of White Bear Lake Housing & Redevelopment Authority 555 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
P., M. & O. Ry., 67 Minn. 339, 342 , 69 N.W.
City of Woodbury v. Woodbury Township Co. 254 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1977
City of Woodbury v. Woodbury Township Co. 254 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1977
Co., 67 Minn. 339, 347 , 69 N.W.
State ex rel. Peterson v. Anderson 69 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1955
State ex rel. Peterson v. Anderson 69 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1955
Co. 67 Minn. 339 , ], we hold that the statutes authorize and provide for a final judgment; and the order appointing commissioners, and all questions incident thereto, including the right of the receiver to institute and prosecute the proceedings, and the questions as to the propriety and necessity of the proposed improv
In Re Condemnation of Lands Owned by Luhrs 19 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1945
In re Burnquist 220 Minn. 129 Minn. 1945
In re Burnquist 220 Minn. 129 Minn. 1945
Co. 67 Minn. 339 , ], we hold that the statutes authorize and provide for a final judgment; and the order appointing commissioners, and all questions incident thereto, including the right of the receiver to institute and prosecute the proceedings, and the questions as to the propriety and necessity of the proposed improv
In Re Condemnation of Lands Owned by Luhrs 19 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1945
Co. 67 Minn. 339 , 69 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Burnquist v. Fuchs 4 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1942
State Ex Rel. Burnquist v. Fuchs 4 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1942
Co. 67 Minn. 339 , 69 N.„W. 1085], we hold that the statutes authorize and provide for a final judgment; and the order appointing commissioners, and all questions incident thereto, including the right of the receiver to institute and prosecute the proceedings, and the questions as to the propriety and necessity of the proposed improve
State ex rel. Gall v. Barnes 162 N.W. 1050 Minn. 1917
State ex rel. Gall v. Barnes 162 N.W. 1050 Minn. 1917
Co. 67 Minn. 339, 343 , ; State v. Guertin, 106 Minn. 248, 252 , , 130 Am.
Eyre v. City of Faribault 141 N.W. 170 Minn. 1913
Eyre v. City of Faribault 141 N.W. 170 Minn. 1913
Co. 67 Minn. 339, 347 , ), it cannot be held that, as between conflicting claims of ownership, the title to the property was adjudicated in the condemnation proceedings so as to preclude the real owner from asserting his ownership of the fund so deposited.
Chambers v. Great Northern Power Co. 110 N.W. 1128 Minn. 1907
Chambers v. Great Northern Power Co. 110 N.W. 1128 Minn. 1907
Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co. 107 N.W. 405 Minn. 1906
Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co. 107 N.W. 405 Minn. 1906
Co., 67 Minn. 339 , ; Western Union Tel.
Duluth Transfer Railway Co. v. Duluth Terminal Railway Co. 83 N.W. 497 Minn. 1900
Duluth Transfer Railway Co. v. Duluth Terminal Railway Co. 83 N.W. 497 Minn. 1900
Co., 67 Minn. 339 , , where doubts were inferentially expressed as to the correct *63 .ness of tbe former decision, but the question was not expressly decided.
Forest Cemetery Ass'n v. Constans 73 N.W. 153 Minn. 1897
Forest Cemetery Ass'n v. Constans 73 N.W. 153 Minn. 1897
Bond v. Welcome, 61 Minn. 43 , ; Fletcher v. Chicago, 67 Minn. 339 , .