DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Berman v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society, 100 N.W. 732.

28 citing documents.

  • Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth 422 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1988
  • Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth 422 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1988
    Soc’y, 93 Minn. 125, 127 , 100 N.W.
  • Susla v. State 247 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1976
  • Susla v. State 247 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1976
    4 See, Dunn v. Schmid, 239 Minn. 559 , Berman v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society, 93 Minn. 125
  • Nieting v. Blondell 235 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1975
  • Nieting v. Blondell 235 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1975
    In Berman v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society, 93 Minn. 125, 127 , an action to recover damages for the wrongful arrest of a person visting the state fairgrounds, we observed that “it has been uniformly held that a suit by an individual cannot be maintained against a sovereign state without its consent.” And, by 1970, the rule that the State of Minnesota
  • Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621 118 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1962
  • Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621 118 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1962
    42 “Since the adoption of the eleventh amendment to the constitution it has been uniformly held that a suit by an individual cannot be maintained against a sovereign state without its consent.” Berman v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society, 93 Minn. 125, 127 , .
  • Visina v. Freeman 89 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1958
  • Visina v. Freeman 89 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1958
    20 In Berman v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society, 93 Minn. 125, 127 , , we said: “* * * The state may and must commit the discharge of its sovereign political functions to agencies selected by it for that purpose.
  • Dunn v. Schmid 60 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1953
  • Dunn v. Schmid 60 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1953
    4 See, M. S. A. 120.01; Berman v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society, 93 Minn. 125 , ; George v. University of Minnesota Athletic Assn. 107 Minn. 424 , ; State ex rel.
  • Erickson v. King 15 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 1944
  • Erickson v. King 15 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 1944
    Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , , 22 L. R. A. 857; Berman v. Minnesota S. A. Society, 93 Minn. 125 , ; State ex rel.
  • Nollet v. Hoffmann 297 N.W. 164 Minn. 1941
  • Nollet v. Hoffmann 297 N.W. 164 Minn. 1941
    Society, 93 Minn. 125 , ; Wilbrecht v. Babcock, 179 Minn. 263 , .
  • Underhill v. State 294 N.W. 643 Minn. 1940
  • Underhill v. State 294 N.W. 643 Minn. 1940
    § 8831; Berman v. Minn. State Agricultural Society, 93 Minn. 125, 127 , .
  • Schulte v. Fitch 202 N.W. 719 Minn. 1925
  • Schulte v. Fitch 202 N.W. 719 Minn. 1925
    No. 83, 122 Minn. 254 , , 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 200; State v. George, 123 Minn. 59 , ; Berman v. Minnesota S. A. Society, 93 Minn. 125 , ; State v. Boehm, 92 Minn. 374 , ; Kramer v. County of Renville, 144 Minn. 195 , ; State Board of Health v. Greenville, 86 Ch. St.
  • Wilkinson v. Mercer 146 N.W. 362 Minn. 1914
  • Wilkinson v. Mercer 146 N.W. 362 Minn. 1914
    In support of this contention they cite such cases as Berman v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society, 93 Minn. 125 , ; Berman v. Cosgrove, 95 Minn. 353 , , and George v. University of Minnesota Athletic Assn. 107 Minn. 424 , , all of which recognize the principle exempting from liability agencies of the state.
  • 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
    Assuming but not conceding that the facts of this case bring it within the provision that no special law shall be enacted when a general law can be made applicable, the state, as said in Berman v. Minnesota State A. S. 93 Minn. 125 , , has the power and authority “to treat every subject of its sovereignty as within a class by itself — as the State University and the commissions for the erection and management of state buildings.” Authority conferred upon a class is not within this constitutional
  • Gleason v. University of Minnesota 116 N.W. 650 Minn. 1908
  • Gleason v. University of Minnesota 116 N.W. 650 Minn. 1908
    The legal status of the Minnesota State Agricultural Society, as defined in Berman v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society, 93 Minn. 125 , , is radically different from that of the university.
  • Berman v. Cosgrove 104 N.W. 534 Minn. 1905
  • Berman v. Cosgrove 104 N.W. 534 Minn. 1905
    In Berman v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society, 93 Minn. 125 , , upon a complaint substantially identical with that here presented, in an action brought by a man with the same name as that of plaintiff here, this court held that the State Agricultural Society became a department of the state, and immune from suits of this character; that the question of the legali