Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite National Bank of Republic of New York v. Banholzer, 71 N.W. 919.

25 citing documents.

Christensen Law Office, PLLC v. Olean 916 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Christensen Law Office, PLLC v. Olean 916 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Baumann , d at 800 ; see Nat'l Bank v. Banholzer , 69 Minn. 24 , 26, 71 N.W.
A17-1320 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We acknowledge that Minnesota appellate courts “have long struggled with the language of the homestead -exemption statute.” Baumann, d at 800; see Nat’l Bank v. Banholzer, 69 Minn. 24, 26, 71 N.W.
Baumann v. Chaska Building Center, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Baumann v. Chaska Building Center, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
585, 586 (8th Cir.BAP 1998) (stating that the language and application of section 510.02 has long vexed the Minnesota courts); National Bank v. Banholzer, 69 Minn. 24, 26 , 71 N.W.
Minnesota Power & Light Company v. Carlton County 145 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1980
Minnesota Power & Light Company v. Carlton County 145 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1980
National Bank v. Banholzer, 69 Minn. 24 , 71 N.W.
O'BRIEN v. Johnson 148 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1967
O'BRIEN v. Johnson 148 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1967
6 National Bank v. Banholzer, 69 Minn. 24 , ; Lockey v. Lockey, 112 Minn. 512 , ; Gale v. Hopkins, 165 Minn. 177 , ; Cysewski v. Steingraber, 222 Minn. 221 , 24 N. W. (2d) 266 .
Minnesota Power & Light Co. v. Carlton County 145 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1966
Minnesota Power & Light Co. v. Carlton County 145 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1966
National Bank v. Banholzer, 69 Minn. 24 , .
Cysewski v. Steingraber 24 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1946
Cysewski v. Steingraber 24 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1946
e in the policy of our homestead law by the revision of 1905, and that the same must be measured by area, and not by the uses or purposes to which the property may be devoted, other than residence purposes.” See, also, Kelly v. Baker, 10 Minn. 124 (154); Umland v. Holcombe, 26 Minn. 286 , ; Jacoby v. Parkland Distilling *227 Co. 41 Minn. 227 , ; National Bank v. Banholzer, 69 Minn. 24 , .
In re DeGriselles 241 N.W. 590 Minn. 1932
In Re Petition of Degriselles 241 N.W. 590 Minn. 1932
In Re Petition of Degriselles 241 N.W. 590 Minn. 1932
See also National Bank v. Banholzer, 69 Minn. 24 , 71 N.W.
In re DeGriselles 241 N.W. 590 Minn. 1932
See also National Bank v. Banholzer, 69 Minn. 24 , ; and State ex rel.
State ex rel. Chase v. Minnesota Tax Commission 160 N.W. 498 Minn. 1916
State ex rel. Chase v. Minnesota Tax Commission 160 N.W. 498 Minn. 1916
In re Smith’s Estate, 51 Minn. 316 , ; National Bank of the Republic v. Banholzer, 69 Minn. 24 , ; Mead v. Marsh, 74 Minn. 268 , .
Stauning v. Crookston Mercantile Co. 159 N.W. 788 Minn. 1916
Stauning v. Crookston Mercantile Co. 159 N.W. 788 Minn. 1916
See Natonal Bank of the Republic v. Banholzer, 69 Minn. 24 , , and Lockey v. Lockey, 112 Minn. 512 , , and the cases cited therein.
Lockey v. Lockey 128 N.W. 833 Minn. 1910
Lockey v. Lockey 128 N.W. 833 Minn. 1910
Kelly v. Baker, 10 Minn. 124 (154); Umland v. Holcombe, 26 Minn. 286 , ; Jacoby v. Parkland Distilling Co., 41 Minn. 227 , ; National Bank of the Republic v. Banholzer, 69 Minn. 24 , .
Mead v. Marsh 77 N.W. 138 Minn. 1898
Mead v. Marsh 77 N.W. 138 Minn. 1898
Upon the whole evidence, we are of the opinion that it fairly sustains the finding and conclusion that the land claimed by the defendants as a homestead is urban in its character, and within the platted portion of the city, within the rule laid down in the case of National Bank v. Banholzer, 69 Minn. 24 , .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by