Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Minneapolis Threshing-Machine Co. v. District Court, 79 N.W. 960.

44 citing documents.

Benjamin L. Tapia, Minn. 2020
Madison Equities, Inc. v. Robert L. Crockarell 889 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 2017
Madison Equities, Inc. v. Robert L. Crockarell 889 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 2017
Ct. of Meeker Cty., 77 Minn. 302, 307, 79 N.W.
Agricultural Insurance v. Midwest Technical Development Corp. 130 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1964
Agricultural Insurance v. Midwest Technical Development Corp. 130 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1964
Minneapolis T. M. Co. v. District Court, 77 Minn. 302, 306 , , as follows: “The meaning of this statute is plain.
Misgen v. Herda 108 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1961
Misgen v. Herda 108 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1961
State v. District Court of Meeker County, 77 Minn. 302 , ; State v. District Court of Pine County, 88 Minn. 95 , .” Section 542.10 provides that a demand by a single defendant must be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth the county of his residence at the time of the commencement of the action.
Dworsky v. Herbst 95 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1959
Dworsky v. Herbst 95 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1959
Minneapolis Threshing-Machine Co. v. District Court, 77 Minn. 302, 306 , , we said: “The meaning of this statute is plain.
State Ex Rel. Sheehan v. District Court 93 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1958
State Ex Rel. Sheehan v. District Court 93 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1958
Minneapolis Threshing-Machine Co. v. District Court, 77 Minn. 302 , ; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Schmitt v. Hoffmann 46 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1951
State Ex Rel. Schmitt v. Hoffmann 46 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1951
Minneapolis Threshing-Machine Co. v. District Court, 77 Minn. 302 , ; Hurning v. Hurning, 80 Minn. 373 , ; State ex rel.
Thomas v. Hector Construction Co. 12 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1943
Thomas v. Hector Construction Co. 12 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1943
Minneapolis T. M. Co. v. District Court, 77 Minn. 302 , 79 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Gresham v. Delaney 6 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1942
State Ex Rel. Gresham v. Delaney 6 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1942
Minneapolis T. M. Co. v. District Court, 77 Minn. 302 , , relied on by relator, were cited and distinguished in the Alworth.
McArthur v. Dunham-Scott Company 291 N.W. 508 Minn. 1940
McArthur v. Dunham-Scott Company 291 N.W. 508 Minn. 1940
Minneapolis T. M. Co. v. District Court, 77 Minn. 302 , , and Pavek v. Ceska Farmarska, etc. 202 Minn. 304 , , it is ordered that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the clerk of court of the sixth judicial district in and for the county of Blue Earth forthwith to transmit the files in these cases to the clerk of court of the fourth judicial
Pavek v. Ceska Farmarska Vzajemne Pojistujici Spolecnost 278 N.W. 367 Minn. 1938
Pavek v. Ceska Farmarska Vzajemne Pojistujici Spolecnost 278 N.W. 367 Minn. 1938
Minneapolis Threshing-Machine Co. v. District Court, 77 Minn. 302 , ; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. McClellan Paper Co. v. District Court 273 N.W. 88 Minn. 1937
State Ex Rel. McClellan Paper Co. v. District Court 273 N.W. 88 Minn. 1937
Minneapolis Threshing-Machine Co. v. District Court, 77 Minn. 302 , , an affidavit in essentially the same form as in the instant case was held sufficient.
State Ex Rel. Aetna Life Insurance v. Janesville State Bank 263 N.W. 460 Minn. 1935
State Ex Rel. Aetna Life Insurance v. Janesville State Bank 263 N.W. 460 Minn. 1935
Minneapolis T. M. Co. v. District Court, 77 Minn. 302 , .
Swanson v. Alworth 198 N.W. 453 Minn. 1924
Swanson v. Alworth 198 N.W. 453 Minn. 1924
Thus, in State v. District Court of Meeker County, 77 Minn. 302 , , the writ was issued to compel the transfer of the files in the case to the county to which the venue had already been changed.
State ex rel. Hanson v. District Court 188 N.W. 161 Minn. 1922
State ex rel. Hanson v. District Court 188 N.W. 161 Minn. 1922
M. T. M. Co., v. District Court of Meeker County, 77 Minn. 302 , ; Grimes v. Ericson, 92 Minn. 164 , .
State ex rel. Security State Bank v. District Court 185 N.W. 1019 Minn. 1921
State ex rel. Security State Bank v. District Court 185 N.W. 1019 Minn. 1921
In State v. District Court of Meeker County, 77 Minn. 302 , , it was held that where defendant complied with the law as to the change of venue, where he was entitled as of right to it, the place of trial being ipso facto changed, mandamus would lie to compel the court to transfer the files.
State v. Equitable Surety Co. 167 N.W. 292 Minn. 1918
Peterson v. Carlson 149 N.W. 536 Minn. 1914
Peterson v. Carlson 149 N.W. 536 Minn. 1914
State v. District Court of Meeker County, 77 Minn. 302 , ; State v. District Court of Pine County, 88 Minn. 95 , .
State ex rel. Prall v. District Court 148 N.W. 463 Minn. 1914
State ex rel. Prall v. District Court 148 N.W. 463 Minn. 1914
State v. District Court of Meeker County, 77 Minn. 302 , .
State ex rel. Ballord-Trimble Lumber Co. v. District Court 139 N.W. 135 Minn. 1912
State ex rel. Ballord-Trimble Lumber Co. v. District Court 139 N.W. 135 Minn. 1912
State v. District Court of Meeker County, 77 Minn. 302 , ; Bell v. Jarvis, 98 Minn. 109 , , 8 An.
State ex rel. Barrett v. District Court 102 N.W. 869 Minn. 1905
State ex rel. Barrett v. District Court 102 N.W. 869 Minn. 1905
State v. District Court of Meeker County, 77 Minn. 302 , ; State v. District Court of Chippewa County, 85 Minn. 283 , .
State ex rel. Jones v. District Court 99 N.W. 806 Minn. 1904
State ex rel. Jones v. District Court 99 N.W. 806 Minn. 1904
Petitioners assume said order is not reviewable on appeal, upon the authority of Carpenter v. Comfort, 22 Minn. 539 , distinguishing Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , , and Grimes v. Ericson, supra, page 164, and call our attention to the case of State v. District Court of Meeker County, 77 Minn. 302 , , in which it was held that mandamus from this court is the only remedy preserved to a party litigant to review the decision of the district court in a like proceeding, except, possibly, after a
State ex rel. Hagan v. District Court 95 N.W. 591 Minn. 1903
State ex rel. Hagan v. District Court 95 N.W. 591 Minn. 1903
Flowers v. Bartlett, 66 Minn. 213 , ; State v. District Court of Meeker Co., 77 Minn. 302 , ; Hurning v. Hurning, 80 Minn. 373 , .