Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pieper v. Lind, 86 N.W. 415.

13 citing documents.

Ginsberg v. Williams 135 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1965
E. g., Curran v. Nash, 224 Minn. 571 , 29 N. W. (2d) 436 , 174 A. L. R. 411 (order overruling special appearance to object to jurisdiction); Lowe v. Nixon, 170 Minn. 391 , Baer v. Waseca Milling Co. 143 Minn. 483 , (order to make a pleading more definite and certain); Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , (order striking case from calendar so as to determine that it could never be tried in that court); Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 256 (333) (order setting aside stipulation for dismissal); Levi v.
First National Bank in Moorhead v. F. M. Distributors, Inc. 124 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1963
We so held in Chadbourne v. Reed, *37 83 Minn. 447 , .
Misgen v. Herda 108 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1961
Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , .
Anderson v. Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance 106 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1960
As early as Chadboume v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , , this court held that multiple defendants residing in different counties had the right to obtain a change of venue to the county of their own selection, even though the action had originally been commenced in a proper county.
Donovan v. Dixon 99 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1959
We so held in Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , .
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. District Court 257 N.W. 277 Minn. 1934
Chad-bourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , ; and the filing of proof of proper demand ipso facto removes the cause to the county so demanded.
In Re Estate of Firle 253 N.W. 889 Minn. 1934
Co. 71 Minn. 45 , ; Baxter v. Coughlin, 80 Minn. 322 , ; State v. O’Brien, 83 Minn. 6 , ; Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , ; Bilsborrow v. Pierce, 112 Minn. 336 , ; Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , ; Peterson v. Township of Manchester, 162 *238 Minn. 486, ; Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , .
Lundblad v. Erickson 230 N.W. 473 Minn. 1930
Co. 71 Minn. 45 , ; Baxter v. Coughlin, 80 Minn. 322 , ; State v. O’Brien, 83 Minn. 6 , ; Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , ; Peterson v. Township of Manchester, 162 Minn. 486 , .
McClearn v. Arnold 217 N.W. 106 Minn. 1927
There may be exceptions (Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , ) which are not here important.
Winegar v. Martin 182 N.W. 513 Minn. 1921
Appellant resists the motion, citing Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , , also Scott v. Miller Liquor Co. 122 Minn. 377 , , and Peterson v. Carlson, 127 Minn. 324 , .
Ewert v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 150 N.W. 224 Minn. 1914
Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , , is relied on as authority for the proposition that an order or action of the district court which puts an end to further steps in that court in a cause properly triable therein is reviewable on appeal.
Scott v. Miller Liquor Co. 142 N.W. 817 Minn. 1913
State v. District Court of Chippewa County, 85 Minn. 283 , ; Suter v. Page, 64 Minn. 444 , ; Grimes v. Ericson, 92 Minn. 164 , ; Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , .
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