Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fohl v. Common Council of Village of Sleepy Eye Lake, 82 N.W. 1097.

30 citing documents.

In Re Condemnation by Sub-Urban Hennepin Regional Park District 561 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re Condemnation by Sub-Urban Hennepin Regional Park District 561 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
at 939 (holding that congestion of traffic and danger due to proposed grade crossing over railroad property not objection to condemnation); Fohl v. Common Council, 80 Minn. 67, 73 , 82 N.W.
Bengtson v. Village of Marine on St. Croix 246 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 1976
Bengtson v. Village of Marine on St. Croix 246 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 1976
Co. v. Village of LeRoy, 124 Minn. 107, 110 , Fohl v. Common Council, 80 Minn. 67, 70
Village of Lamberton v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 265 N.W. 801 Minn. 1936
Village of Lamberton v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 265 N.W. 801 Minn. 1936
Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , ; Fohl v. Village of Sleepy Eye Lake, 80 Minn. 67 , ; St.
In Re Establishment of Judicial Road 222 N.W. 578 Minn. 1928
In re Establishment of Judicial Road 176 Minn. 94 Minn. 1928
In re Establishment of Judicial Road 176 Minn. 94 Minn. 1928
Fohl v. Common Council, 80 Minn. 67 , ; Hunstiger v. Kilian, 130 Minn. 474 , ; Id.
In Re Establishment of Judicial Road 222 N.W. 578 Minn. 1928
Fohl v. Common Council, 80 Minn. 67 , 82 N.W.
Mahoney v. Kelley 194 N.W. 775 Minn. 1923
Mahoney v. Kelley 194 N.W. 775 Minn. 1923
Fohl v. Common Council of Sleepy Eye, 80 Minn. 67 , ; Minneapolis & St.
Brazil v. County of Sibley 166 N.W. 1077 Minn. 1918
Brazil v. County of Sibley 166 N.W. 1077 Minn. 1918
of Lac qui Parle County, 131 Minn. 79 , ; School District No. 40, Rock County v. Bolstad, 121 Minn. 376 , ; Hunstiger v. Kilian, 130 Minn. 474 , ; Webb v. Lucas, 125 Minn. 403 , ; Fohl v. Common Council of Village of Sleepy Eye Lake, 80 Minn. 67 , ; Minneapolis & St.
State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. District Court of Fourth Judicial District 158 N.W. 240 Minn. 1916
State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. District Court of Fourth Judicial District 158 N.W. 240 Minn. 1916
Paul, 46 Minn. 540 , ; Knoblauch v. City of Minneapolis, 56 Minn. 321 , ; Jane-way v. City of Duluth, 65 Minn. 292 , ; Fohl v. Common Council of Village of Sleepy Eye Lake, 80 Minn. 67 , ; Webb v. Lucas, 125 Minn. 403 , .
State ex rel. Smith v. Van Reed 145 N.W. 967 Minn. 1914
State ex rel. Smith v. Van Reed 145 N.W. 967 Minn. 1914
Paul, 46 Minn. 540 , ; Knoblauch v. City of Minneapolis, 56 Minn. 321 , ; Fohl v. Common Council of Village of Sleepy Eye Lake, 80 Minn. 67 , ; Minneapolis & St.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Village of Le Roy 144 N.W. 464 Minn. 1913
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Village of Le Roy 144 N.W. 464 Minn. 1913
Fohl v. Common Council of Village of Sleepy Eye Lake, 80 Minn. 67 , ; Minneapolis & St.
Obert v. Board of County Commissioners 141 N.W. 810 Minn. 1913
Obert v. Board of County Commissioners 141 N.W. 810 Minn. 1913
Fohl v. Common Council of Sleepy Eye Lake, 80 Minn. 67 , ; Minneapolis & St.
School District No. 40 v. Bolstad 141 N.W. 801 Minn. 1913
School District No. 40 v. Bolstad 141 N.W. 801 Minn. 1913
The pertinent language now quoted from Fohl v. Common Council of Sleepy Eye Lake, 80 Minn. 67, 70 , , involving the condemnation •of land for streets, under a different statute, expresses in a general way the thought of the majority in this connection: “The power and authority to establish and lay out streets and highways is legislative, and all questions of expediency and necessity are exclusive
Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co. 107 N.W. 405 Minn. 1906
Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co. 107 N.W. 405 Minn. 1906
Co., 37 Minn. 164 , ; Fohl v. Common Council, 80 Minn. 67 , ; Minneapolis & St.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Village of Hartland 88 N.W. 423 Minn. 1901
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Village of Hartland 88 N.W. 423 Minn. 1901
We held in the case of Fohl v. Common Council of Village of Sleepy Eye Lake, 80 Minn. 67 , , that, whether the verdict of a jury in proceedings of this character upon the question as to the necessity and propriety of a public street or highway is final and conclusive to the same extent as the determination of the municipal authorities or not, such verdict should be set aside only upon its ap
Fohl v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 87 N.W. 919 Minn. 1901
Fohl v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 87 N.W. 919 Minn. 1901