Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 95 N.W. 882.

45 citing documents.

Ideal Life Church of Lake Elmo v. County of Washington 304 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1981
Ideal Life Church of Lake Elmo v. County of Washington 304 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1981
See, State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , 95 N.W.
Mayo Foundation v. Commissioner of Revenue 236 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1975
Mayo Foundation v. Commissioner of Revenue 236 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1975
ranting an organization tax-exempt status as a charitable institution: (1) It must be organized and operated for the purpose of rendering aid, comfort, and assistance to the sick and indigent (for which he cites County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460 , [1881]); (2) it must be conducted without a view to profit (for which he cites State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , [1903]); (3) it must be supported and maintained in part by benevolent contributions (for which he
Camping and Education Foundation v. State 164 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1969
Camping and Education Foundation v. State 164 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1969
Whether the property is exempt is a fact question which necessarily turns upon the particular use to which it is devoted; the exemption accordingly depends upon the particular facts in each case, and the burden of proof rests with the petitioner who seeks the exemption.” *252 A definition of charitable institution may be found in State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92, 95 , : “* * * [A] ‘purely charitable institution,’ within the meaning of this constitutional provision, may be said to be
Validity of Claim of Assembly Homes, Inc. v. Yellow Medicine County 140 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1966
Validity of Claim of Assembly Homes, Inc. v. Yellow Medicine County 140 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1966
State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92, 95 , .
Junior Achievement of Greater Minneapolis, Inc. v. State 135 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1965
Junior Achievement of Greater Minneapolis, Inc. v. State 135 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1965
Peter’s Church v. County of Scott, 12 Minn. 280 (395); State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , .
Concordia College Corporation v. State 120 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1963
Concordia College Corporation v. State 120 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1963
State v. Carleton College, 154 Minn. 280 , ; State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , ; Graphic Arts Educational Foundation, Inc. v. State, 240 Minn. 143 , 59 N. W. (2d) 841 .
State v. Northwestern Preparatory School 83 N.W.2d 242 Minn. 1957
State v. Northwestern Preparatory School 83 N.W.2d 242 Minn. 1957
Christian Business Men’s Committee v. State, 228 Minn. 549 , 38 N. W. (2d) 803 ; State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , ; St.
Graphic Arts Educational Foundation, Inc. v. State 59 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1953
Graphic Arts Educational Foundation, Inc. v. State 59 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1953
For the distinction between a purely “charitable institution” and a “seminary of learning,” see State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , .
State v. Lahiff 45 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1951
State v. Northwestern Vocational Institute, Inc. 45 N.W.2d 653 Minn. 1951
State v. Northwestern Vocational Institute, Inc. 45 N.W.2d 653 Minn. 1951
See, County of Hennepin v. Bell, 43 Minn. 344 , ; Ramsey County v. Stryker, 52 Minn. 144 , ; State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , ; State v. Carleton College, 154 Minn. 280 , .
Christian Business Men's Committee of Minneapolis, Inc. v. State 38 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1949
Christian Business Men's Committee of Minneapolis, Inc. v. State 38 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1949
Paul, 194 Minn. 554, 558-559 , , 590, 99 A. L. R. 1137; State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , ; State v. St.
State v. Board of Foreign Missions of Augustana Synod 22 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1946
State v. Board of Foreign Missions of Augustana Synod 22 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1946
In applying this principle, it is of the utmost importance to keep in mind that “the basis of tax exemptions is the accomplishment of public purposes and not the favoring of particular persons or corporations at the expense of taxpayers generally.” State v. Ritschel, 220 Minn. 578, 583 , 20 N. W. (2d) 673, 676 ; State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92, 97 , .
Trustees of Hamline University v. Peacock 14 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1944
Trustees of Hamline University v. Peacock 14 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1944
The function of such institutions is largely public, and their property is devoted “not to private gain to individuals, but to a beneficent use — the education and enlightenment of the citizen.” State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92, 97 , .
Christgau v. Woodlawn Cemetery Assn. 293 N.W. 619 Minn. 1940
Christgau v. Woodlawn Cemetery Assn. 293 N.W. 619 Minn. 1940
These principles are settled in accordance with the weight of reason and authority by our decision in State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , , where an institution of learning claimed that its endowments were exempt from taxation on the grounds that it was both a charitable institution and a college or seminary of learning.
State v. H. Longstreet Taylor Foundation 269 N.W. 469 Minn. 1936
State v. H. Longstreet Taylor Foundation 269 N.W. 469 Minn. 1936
One of the most valuable and enlightening cases is State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92, 97 , .
County of Anoka v. City of St. Paul 261 N.W. 368 Minn. 1935
County of Anoka v. City of St. Paul 261 N.W. 368 Minn. 1935
Of note here are the cases of State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , ; State v. St.
State v. Northwestern College of Speech Arts, Inc. 258 N.W. 1 Minn. 1934
State v. Northwestern College of Speech Arts, Inc. 258 N.W. 1 Minn. 1934
Further reasons for a construction exempting an educational institution from taxation and adherence to the two decisions cited are found in State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , ; State v. Carleton College, 154 Minn. 280 , .
City of Minneapolis v. Armson 246 N.W. 660 Minn. 1933
City of Minneapolis v. Armson 246 N.W. 660 Minn. 1933
Le Duc v. City of Hastings, 39 Minn. 110 , ; State v. Pioneer S. & L. Co. 63 Minn. 80 , ; State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , .
State v. Union Congregational Church 216 N.W. 326 Minn. 1927
State v. Union Congregational Church 216 N.W. 326 Minn. 1927
County of Hennepin v. Grace, 27 Minn. 503 , ; County of Hennepin v. Bell, 43 Minn. 344 , 45 * Ramsey County v. Macalester College, 51 Minn. 437 , , 18 L. R. A. 278; State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , ; State v. St.
State v. Church of Incarnation 196 N.W. 802 Minn. 1924
State v. Church of Incarnation 196 N.W. 802 Minn. 1924
In State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , , decided in 1903, the court considered the Constitution, the statutes and the previous cases, and held that the constitutional provision is self-executing; that the Constitution creates the exemption and that statutes can neither add to nor take from it.
State v. Carleton College 191 N.W. 400 Minn. 1923
State v. Carleton College 191 N.W. 400 Minn. 1923
County of Hennepin v. Grace, 27 Minn. 503 , ; County of Hennepin v. Bell, 43 Minn. 344 , ; County of Ramsey v. Church of the Good Shepherd, 45 Minn. 229 , ; State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , .
State v. W. L. Harris Realty Co. 180 N.W. 776 Minn. 1921
State v. W. L. Harris Realty Co. 180 N.W. 776 Minn. 1921
County of Nobles v. Hamline University, 46 Minn. 316 , ; State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , .
State v. St. Barnabas Hospital 104 N.W. 551 Minn. 1905
State v. St. Barnabas Hospital 104 N.W. 551 Minn. 1905
In the recent case of State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92, 96, 100 , , which was a proceeding to subject valuable endowments invested in farm mortgages, the income of which was devoted to the maintenance and support of a seminary of learning, it was held, upon a full and exhaustive review of our own decisions considered and referred to therein in the language of