Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lakeside Land Co., 73 N.W. 970.

35 citing documents.

Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNOR 633 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2001
Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNOR 633 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2001
State v. Lakeside Land Co., 71 Minn. 283, 291 , *527 73 N.W.
County of St. Louis v. Federal Land Bank of St. Paul 338 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1983
County of St. Louis v. Federal Land Bank of St. Paul 338 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1983
See State v. Lakeside Land Co., 71 Minn. 283 , 73 N.W.
Contos v. Herbst 278 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1979
Contos v. Herbst 278 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1979
State v. Lakeside Land Co., 71 Minn. 283 , 73 N.W.
Lindahl v. State 70 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 1955
Lindahl v. State 70 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 1955
For an excellent discussion by Mr. Justice Mitchell of the rights and duties of the individual taxpayer, see State v. Lakeside Land Co. 71 Minn. 283 , .
Saxhaug v. County of Jackson 10 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1943
Saxhaug v. County of Jackson 10 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1943
932 ; State v. Lakeside Land Co. 71 Minn. 283 , 73 N.W.
Glendale U.H.S. Dist. v. Peoria S.D. 99 P.2d 482 Ariz. 1940
Glendale Union High School District v. Peoria School District No. 11 55 Ariz. 151 Ariz. 1940
State v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 270 N.W. 609 Minn. 1936
State v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 270 N.W. 609 Minn. 1936
But the defense so given was subsequently rendered of no practical value to the property OAAmer, if it was not in effect Avholly taken aAvay, in State v. Lakeside Land Co. 71 Minn. 283 , , and State v. West Duluth Land Co. 75 Minn. 456 , .
Day v. Inland Steel Co. 239 N.W. 776 Minn. 1931
Day v. Inland Steel Co. 239 N.W. 776 Minn. 1931
State v. Lakeside Land Co. 71 Minn. 283 , .
Town of Balkan v. Village of Buhl 197 N.W. 266 Minn. 1924
Town of Balkan v. Village of Buhl 197 N.W. 266 Minn. 1924
State v. Lakeside Land Co. 71 Minn. 283 (289), .
Consolidation of School District No. 30 v. Consolidated School District No. 30 185 N.W. 961 Minn. 1921
Consolidation of School District No. 30 v. Consolidated School District No. 30 185 N.W. 961 Minn. 1921
687; State v. Lakeside Land Co. 71 Minn. 283 , ; Trautmann v. McLeod, 74 Minn. 110 , .
State v. Koochiching Realty Co. 177 N.W. 940 Minn. 1920
State v. Koochiching Realty Co. 177 N.W. 940 Minn. 1920
But the defense so given was subsequently rendered of no practical value to the property owner, if it was not in effect wholly taken away, in State v. Lakeside Land Co. 71 Minn. 283 , , and State v. West Duluth Land Co. 75 Minn. 456 , .
State v. Security National Bank 165 N.W. 1067 Minn. 1918
State v. Security National Bank 165 N.W. 1067 Minn. 1918
State v. Lakeside Land Co. 71 Minn. 283 , .
State ex rel. Hennepin Holding Co. v. Minnesota Tax Commission 160 N.W. 665 Minn. 1916
State ex rel. Hennepin Holding Co. v. Minnesota Tax Commission 160 N.W. 665 Minn. 1916
Soon , after the decision in State v. Lakeside Land Co. 71 Minn. 283 , , and State v. West Duluth Land Co. 75 Minn. 456 , , construing the defense permitted in tax proceedings that the property had been “partially, unfairly or unequally assessed,” as not allowing proof that it had been assessed at a value greater than its actual value, the legislature in its r
State v. Atwood Lumber Co. 105 N.W. 276 Minn. 1905
State v. Atwood Lumber Co. 105 N.W. 276 Minn. 1905
It was held in the case of State v. Lakeside Land Co., 71 Minn. 283 , , that matters of this sort can all be corrected by an application to the board of equalization so as to produce entire equality among the several taxpayers, and that it must be presumed that such board would do its duty and correct any and -all omissions or under-valuations which might be brought to th
Johnson v. Velve 90 N.W. 126 Minn. 1902
State v. Canda Cattle Car Co. 89 N.W. 66 Minn. 1902
State v. Canda Cattle Car Co. 89 N.W. 66 Minn. 1902
619 , 43 S. W. 387 ; State v. Lakeside Land Co., 71 Minn. 283 , ; State v. Cumberland, 40 Md.
State v. West Duluth Land Co. 78 N.W. 115 Minn. 1899
State v. West Duluth Land Co. 78 N.W. 115 Minn. 1899
In the recent case of State v. Lakeside Land Co., 71 Minn. 283 , , certified up as this was, it was held, after a very extended and careful consideration of the point (fully evidenced by the exhaustive and complete opinion), that: “If the assessment of a taxpayer’s land is impartial, equal and fair, compared with the average valuation of other lands generally (except
State ex rel. Marr v. Stearns 75 N.W. 210 Minn. 1898
State ex rel. Marr v. Stearns 75 N.W. 210 Minn. 1898
State v. Lakeside Land Co., 71 Minn. 283 , .