Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Evans, 108 N.W. 958.

29 citing documents.

Minnesota Sands, LLC, Minn. 2020
We have acknowledged that “[t]he customary method of developing, working, and obtaining profits from mineral lands, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, was, by means of mineral leases.” (“ ‘For what,’ says Lord Coke .
Matter of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties 263 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 1978
Matter of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties 263 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 1978
See, also, State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , 108 N.W.
Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout 124 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1963
Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout 124 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1963
While Youngstown does not question the Minnesota rule that an iron ore lease is in fact a lease, and not a sale of ore in place, as held in State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , , it insists that the lease before us is a special type of lease, the sole, stated purpose of which from the time of its execution was the production of iron ore.
State v. Longyear Holding Co. 29 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1947
State v. Longyear Holding Co. 29 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1947
Thus, in State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , , 9 Ann. Cas.
State v. Finnegan 246 N.W. 521 Minn. 1933
State v. Finnegan 246 N.W. 521 Minn. 1933
If, since 1872 as to internal improvement and 1881 as to SAvamp lands, the auditor has been the constitutionally exclusive sales agent of the state, it is astonishing that heretofore (Avith the exception of the unsuccessful effort in State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , , 9 Ann. Cas.
Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. v. Lake Superior Consolidated Iron Mines 226 N.W. 843 Minn. 1929
Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. v. Lake Superior Consolidated Iron Mines 226 N.W. 843 Minn. 1929
This was definitely held in State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , , 9 Ann. Cas.
Lipinski v. Gould 218 N.W. 123 Minn. 1928
Lipinski v. Gould 218 N.W. 123 Minn. 1928
State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , 108 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Inter-State Iron Co. v. Armson 207 N.W. 727 Minn. 1926
State Ex Rel. Inter-State Iron Co. v. Armson 207 N.W. 727 Minn. 1926
State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , , 9 Ann. Cas.
State v. Cavour Mining Co. 173 N.W. 415 Minn. 1919
State v. Cavour Mining Co. 173 N.W. 415 Minn. 1919
State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , , 9 Ann. Cas.
State v. Hobart Iron Co. 172 N.W. 899 Minn. 1919
Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Douglas 161 N.W. 158 Minn. 1917
Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Douglas 161 N.W. 158 Minn. 1917
The respondent maintains that by the decisions in State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , , 9 Ann. Cas.
State v. Royal Mineral Ass'n 156 N.W. 128 Minn. 1916
State v. Royal Mineral Ass'n 156 N.W. 128 Minn. 1916
State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , , 9 Ann. Cas.
Frasch v. City of New Ulm 153 N.W. 121 Minn. 1915
Twitchell v. Cummings 143 N.W. 785 Minn. 1913
Twitchell v. Cummings 143 N.W. 785 Minn. 1913
State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220, 226 , , 9 Ann. Cas.
Boeing v. Owsley 142 N.W. 129 Minn. 1913
Boeing v. Owsley 142 N.W. 129 Minn. 1913
On the other hand respondent, relying largely upon State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , , 9 Ann. Cas.
Lawver v. Great Northern Railway Co. 127 N.W. 431 Minn. 1910
Lawver v. Great Northern Railway Co. 127 N.W. 431 Minn. 1910
State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , .