Cited by

Douglas v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , .

Douglas v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , .

Douglas v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , ; Murray v. Commrs.

Douglas v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , ; Murray v. Commrs.

Roe v. City of Duluth, 153 Minn. 68 , , and cases cited; Marwin v. Board, 140 Minn. 346 , , and cases cited; State v. Erickson, 140 Minn. 509 , ; State v. Village of Gilbert, 127 Minn. 452 , ; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , .

v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , , a statute providing for the election of a county assessor in counties having not less than 100,000 nor more than 185,000 inhabitants was held void as special legislation.

State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , ; Murray v. Board of Co. Commrs.

& 1916 Supp. § 1683; State v. Village of Gilbert, 127 Minn. 452 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , ; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264 , .

In this connection he relies upon Storch v. Duhnke, 76 Minn. 531 , .

Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , .

Co., 40 Minn. 249, 252 , ; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531, 534 , ; Murray v. Board of Commrs.

So in State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , , the act was void because “the essential provision of this act and the one which was designed to differentiate counties falling within its purview is the one providing for one assessor for the whole county, instead of an assessor in each township, city and village, as provided in the then existing gene

Thus, in State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531, 536 , , Justice Mitchell said: “It is also urged that the legislature must be allowed a large discretion in the matter of classification by population.

by such a difference in the situation and circumstances of the subjects placed in different classes as suggests the necessity or propriety of different legislation with respect to them.” State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322 , ; Cobb v. Bord, 40 Minn. 479 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 57 Minn. 47 , ; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , ; Beck v. City of St.

The classification is not within the rule as defined in State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , .

They are clearly stated in State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531, 534 , , as follows: “First, that the basis of classification cannot be arbitrary or illusive, but must be founded upon such a substantial distinction, having reference to the subject-matter of the legislation, between the objects or places embraced in the subject of the legislation and the objects or pla

Louis Co., 61 Minn. 542 , ; State v. Sullivan, 72 *439 Minn. 126 , ; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , ; Murray v. Board of Co. Commrs.

Legislation limited in its relation to particular subdivisions of the state, to be valid, must rest on some characteristic or peculiarity plainly distinguishing the places included from those excluded.” And another terse summary of the rules which are to govern when passing upon alleged special legislation is found in State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531, 534 , , in these words: “First, that the basis of classification cannot be arbitrary or *489 illusive, but must be founded upon such a substantial dist

Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , .