Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Minnesota Transfer Railway Co. v. District Court, 71 N.W. 27.

29 citing documents.

Village of Edina v. Joseph 119 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1962
Village of Edina v. Joseph 119 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1962
Co. v. District Court, 68 Minn. 242, 245 , , this court said: “* * * judgment of the board of public works [of St.
Judd v. City of St. Cloud 272 N.W. 577 Minn. 1936
Judd v. City of St. Cloud 272 N.W. 577 Minn. 1936
Co. v. District Court, 68 Minn. 242 , 71 N.W.
State v. Pequot Rural Telephone Co. 247 N.W. 695 Minn. 1933
State v. Pequot Rural Telephone Co. 247 N.W. 695 Minn. 1933
Co. v. District Court, 68 Minn. 242 , ; State v. Twin City Tel.
In Re Assessment for Improving Superior Street 216 N.W. 318 Minn. 1927
In Re Assessment for Improving Superior Street 216 N.W. 318 Minn. 1927
Co. v. District Court, 68 Minn. 242 , .
Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. City of Marshall 186 N.W. 137 Minn. 1922
State v. Great Northern Railway Co. 171 N.W. 317 Minn. 1919
State v. Great Northern Railway Co. 171 N.W. 317 Minn. 1919
As was pointed out in State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 68 Minn. 242 , , each case must be determined upon its own facts and with reference to certain general principles applicable to all cases.
State v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 170 N.W. 613 Minn. 1919
State v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 170 N.W. 613 Minn. 1919
Nor can it be said as a matter of law that the portions not so used are mere “fragments here and there” which the''court will not take into account under the rule announced in State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 68 Minn. 242 , .
State v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 168 N.W. 180 Minn. 1918
State v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 168 N.W. 180 Minn. 1918
Co. 68 Minn. 242 , ; State v. Northwestern Tel.
Mayer v. City of Shakopee 130 N.W. 77 Minn. 1911
Mayer v. City of Shakopee 130 N.W. 77 Minn. 1911
State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 68 Minn. 242 , ; State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 80 Minn. 293 , ; State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 95 Minn. 70 , .
State ex rel. Board of County Commissioners v. Johnson 126 N.W. 479 Minn. 1910
State ex rel. Board of County Commissioners v. Johnson 126 N.W. 479 Minn. 1910
This question is disposed of adverse *15 ly to the contention of counsel by the case of State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 68 Minn. 242 , .
Patterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 109 N.W. 993 Minn. 1906
Patterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 109 N.W. 993 Minn. 1906
Paul & Sioux City R. Co., 23 Minn. 469 ; State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 68 Minn. 242 , .
State ex rel. St. Anthony Park North Trust Co. v. District Court 103 N.W. 881 Minn. 1905
State ex rel. St. Anthony Park North Trust Co. v. District Court 103 N.W. 881 Minn. 1905
gainst unnecessary or improvident expenses for local improvements, the observance of those provisions should be in any case dispensed with; but the language, especially of this amendment, is so full and precise that there is no avoiding the conclusion that the legislature intended such result.” See also In re Piedmont Avenue, 59 Minn. 522 , ; State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 68 Minn. 242, 248 , ; and State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 77 Minn. 248, 255 , .
State v. Robert P. Lewis Co. 85 N.W. 207 Minn. 1901
State v. Robert P. Lewis Co. 85 N.W. 207 Minn. 1901
See also State v. District Court, 68 Minn. 242 , .
State ex rel. Wheeler v. District Court 83 N.W. 183 Minn. 1900
State ex rel. Wheeler v. District Court 83 N.W. 183 Minn. 1900
tage, so that the amount assessed against each lineal foot of each of said several lots and parcels of land was the amount of $5.396 per front foot, the board having duly determined that all of said property was equally benefited specially by said improvement.” And this finding is to be construed and conceded with reference to what has been repeatedly held, as was said in State v. District Court, 68 Minn. 242, 245 , : “That under the charter of the city of St.
State v. Kipp 73 N.W. 164 Minn. 1897
State v. Kipp 73 N.W. 164 Minn. 1897
As bearing on the construction to be placed on this statute, see State v. District, 68 Minn. 242 , .