Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 107 N.W. 405.

35 citing documents.

Minneapolis Community Development Agency v. Opus Northwest, LLC 582 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Matter of MCDA 582 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Matter of MCDA 582 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
395, 401-02 (1907) (condemnation prohibited because, despite change in state laws, waters in question were also federal and Minnesota Canal did not receive permission from U.S. government); Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429, 443 , 107 N.W.
Minneapolis Community Development Agency v. Opus Northwest, LLC 582 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
395, 401-02 (1907) (condemnation prohibited because, despite change in state laws, waters in question were also federal and Minnesota Canal did not receive permission from U.S. government); Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429, 443 , 107 N.W.
Lilly v. City of Minneapolis 527 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lilly v. City of Minneapolis 527 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429, 437 , 107 N.W.
Bolin Lumber Co. v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 134 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1965
Bolin Lumber Co. v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 134 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1965
supra; Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching County, 97 Minn. 429 , , 5 L. R. A. (N.S.)
Chicago Great Western Railway Co. v. Jesse 82 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1957
Chicago Great Western Railway Co. v. Jesse 82 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1957
They cite Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co. 97 Minn. 429 , , 5 L.R.A.(N.S.)
In Re Condemnation by Dairyland Power Cooperative 82 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1957
In Re Condemnation by Dairyland Power Cooperative 82 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1957
Co. 65 Minn. 515, 517 , , 33 L. R. A. 427, 429, we said: “* * The term ‘public use’ is flexible, and cannot be limited to the public use known at the time of the forming of the constitution.” The property owners contend that this court is committed to the narrow “public use” test as enunciated in Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co. 97 Minn. 429 , , 5 L.R.A.
Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth 48 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1951
Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth 48 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1951
They argue that the instant case falls directly within the rule of Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Company, 97 Minn. 429 , , 5 L.R.A.
Burnquist v. Cook 19 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1945
Burnquist v. Cook 19 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1945
See, Minnesota C. & P. Co. v. Koochiching Company, 97 Minn. 429 , , 5 L.R.A.(N.S.)
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
427 ; Sanborn v. Van Duyne, 90 Minn. 215 , ; Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co. 97 Minn. 429 , , 5 L.R.A.
Price v. Minnesota, Dakota & Western Railway Co. 153 N.W. 532 Minn. 1915
Price v. Minnesota, Dakota & Western Railway Co. 153 N.W. 532 Minn. 1915
See also Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co. 97 Minn. 429 , , 5 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Otter Tail Power Co. v. Brastad 151 N.W. 198 Minn. 1915
Otter Tail Power Co. v. Brastad 151 N.W. 198 Minn. 1915
Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co. 97 Minn. 429, 450 , , 5 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. New Keystone Copper Co. 144 P. 277 Ariz. 1914
Webb v. Lucas 147 N.W. 273 Minn. 1914
Webb v. Lucas 147 N.W. 273 Minn. 1914
427 ; Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co. 97 Minn. 429 , , 5 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Torgerson v. Crookston Lumber Co. 144 N.W. 154 Minn. 1913
Torgerson v. Crookston Lumber Co. 144 N.W. 154 Minn. 1913
We agree that the stream was so navigable (Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co. 97 Minn. 429, 440 , , 5 L.R.A.(N.S.)
State ex rel. Mason v. Consumers Power Co. 137 N.W. 1104 Minn. 1912
State ex rel. Mason v. Consumers Power Co. 137 N.W. 1104 Minn. 1912
of Duluth, 105 Minn. 472 , ; Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co. 97 Minn. 429, 450 , .
State ex rel. Schubert v. Board of Supervisors 114 N.W. 244 Minn. 1907
State ex rel. Schubert v. Board of Supervisors 114 N.W. 244 Minn. 1907
It follows that a statute which attempts to authorize the condemnation of private property for other than a public use is void, without reference to any legislative declaration as to the nature of the use.” Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429
Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Pratt 112 N.W. 395 Minn. 1907
Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Pratt 112 N.W. 395 Minn. 1907
In the recent case of Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429 , , this petitioner was denied the right to exercise the power of eminent domain in aid of the construction of its proposed works, because the purposes stated in the petition in that action were in part private, and upon the further ground that the statutes of this .state as they then stood did not autho
Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Fall Lake Boom Co. 148 N.W. 561 Minn. 1894
Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Fall Lake Boom Co. 148 N.W. 561 Minn. 1894
In the first case (Minnesota Canal *27 & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co. 97 Minn. 429 , , 5 L.R.A.(N.S.)

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by