Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Barge, 84 N.W. 911.

30 citing documents.

Cleveland v. County of Rice 56 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1952
Cleveland v. County of Rice 56 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1952
764 (requiring sworn information on details of business); State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256 , 84 N.W.
Smith v. Barry 17 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1944
Smith v. Barry 17 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1944
See, State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256 , , 53 L. R. A. 428; City of St.
State v. Houston 298 N.W. 358 Minn. 1941
State v. Houston 298 N.W. 358 Minn. 1941
State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256 , , 53 L. R. A. 428; Knobloch v. C. M. & St.
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Duluth 189 N.W. 937 Minn. 1922
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Duluth 189 N.W. 937 Minn. 1922
State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256 , , 53 L. R. A. 428; Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197, 211 , , 116 Am.
Power v. Nordstrom 184 N.W. 967 Minn. 1921
Power v. Nordstrom 184 N.W. 967 Minn. 1921
State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256 , , 53 L.R.A.
Street v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 145 N.W. 746 Minn. 1914
Twin City Separator Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 137 N.W. 193 Minn. 1912
Twin City Separator Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 137 N.W. 193 Minn. 1912
“Courts have no power to declare an ordinance void for the reason urged” — that is, for unreasonableness — said Chief Justice Start, in State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256, 259 , , 53 L.R.A.
State v. Lally 122 N.W. 13 Minn. 1909
State v. Lally 122 N.W. 13 Minn. 1909
State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256 , , 53 L. R. A. 428; State v. McGregor, 88 Minn. 74 , ; State v. Klein, 107 Minn. 184 , .
State v. Klein 119 N.W. 656 Minn. 1909
State v. Brown 119 N.W. 657 Minn. 1909
State v. Klein 119 N.W. 656 Minn. 1909
State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256 , , 53 L. R. A. 428.
State v. Brown 119 N.W. 657 Minn. 1909
It is urged on behalf of the defendant that the fact that the rear inclosure was rented to a third party distinguishes this case from State v. Barge, 83 Minn. 256 , , 53 L. R. A. 428, and State v. McGregor, 88 Minn. 74 , , because, as it is claimed, the defendant had no control of the rear room.
Baart v. Martin 108 N.W. 945 Minn. 1906
Baart v. Martin 108 N.W. 945 Minn. 1906
of Polk County, 69 Minn. 202 , ; State v. Rollins, 80 Minn. 216 , ; State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256 , ; State v. City Council, 87 Minn. 156 , ; U. S. v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279 , 24 Sup.
Pitzl v. Winter 105 N.W. 673 Minn. 1905
White v. Thomas 98 N.W. 101 Minn. 1904
White v. Thomas 98 N.W. 101 Minn. 1904
of Polk Co., 69 Minn. 202 , ; State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256 , .
State v. McGregor 92 N.W. 509 Minn. 1902
State v. McGregor 92 N.W. 509 Minn. 1902
This case is controlled by the decision in State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256 , .
State ex rel. Freeman v. Zimmerman 90 N.W. 783 Minn. 1902
State ex rel. Freeman v. Zimmerman 90 N.W. 783 Minn. 1902
State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256 , ; Northwestern Tel.
Kelly v. City of Faribault 85 N.W. 720 Minn. 1901
Kelly v. City of Faribault 85 N.W. 720 Minn. 1901
State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256 , .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by