Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Baart v. Martin, 108 N.W. 945.

42 citing documents.

Thomas A. Ruether, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The only legal citations appellants support this assertion with is a reference to the general principle in Baart v. Martin that “fraud vitiates [every] transaction.”
In Re the Brainerd National Bank 383 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1986
In Re the Brainerd National Bank 383 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1986
McCrossan, Inc. v. Builders Finance Co., 304 Minn. 538 , (clerical errors), In re Petition of Estate of Koester, 297 Minn. 387 , Konantz v. Stein, 283 Minn. 33 , (no actual notice of Torrens proceedings given the party in possession of the property); and Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , 108 N.W.
Northwest Holding Co. v. Evanson 122 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 1963
Northwest Holding Co. v. Evanson 122 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 1963
Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197, 212 , .
Village of Savage v. Allen 95 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1959
Village of Savage v. Allen 95 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1959
Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , ; In re Application of Rees to Register Title to Land, 211 Minn. 103 , .
Van Devere v. Moore 67 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1954
Van Devere v. Moore 67 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1954
10 Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , .
Burman v. Burman 40 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1950
Burman v. Burman 40 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1950
*84 In Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 A. S. R. 394, we held that when the name of a claimant is known to an applicant in connection with registration proceedings, either from the report of the examiner or from other sources, the summons cannot be served upon such claimant by publication unless his name appears in the summons; that th
Carl v. Detoffol 25 N.W.2d 479 Minn. 1946
Carl v. Detoffol 25 N.W.2d 479 Minn. 1946
7 Rea v. Kelley, 183 Minn. 194 , ; In re Application of Juran, 178 Minn. 55 , ; Baart v. Mantin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 A. S. R. 394.
In Re Application of Rees to Register Title to Land 300 N.W. 396 Minn. 1941
Dean v. Rees 300 N.W. 396 Minn. 1941
Dean v. Rees 300 N.W. 396 Minn. 1941
In Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 A. S. R. 391, and Lamprey v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. 197 Minn. 112 , , it is held that, except for fraud, registration decrees or judgments are not subject to attack after six months from the entry thereof.
In Re Application of Rees to Register Title to Land 300 N.W. 396 Minn. 1941
In Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , 108 N.W.
Turner v. Edwards 292 N.W. 257 Minn. 1940
Turner v. Edwards 292 N.W. 257 Minn. 1940
(2 ed. & 1937 Supp.) § 3834; Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , .
Claggett v. Claggett 284 N.W. 363 Minn. 1939
Claggett v. Claggett 284 N.W. 363 Minn. 1939
Co. 136 Minn. 216 , ; Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 A. S. R. 394.
Rea v. Kelley 235 N.W. 910 Minn. 1931
Rea v. Kelley 235 N.W. 910 Minn. 1931
Douglas v. Westfall, 85 Minn. 437 , , 57 L. R. A. 297, 89 A. S. R. 571; Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 A. S. R. 394; Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 7; Henry v. White, 123 Minn. 182 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 4; Abrahamson v. Sundman, 174 Minn. 22 , .
Horgan v. Sargent 233 N.W. 866 Minn. 1930
Horgan v. Sargent 233 N.W. 866 Minn. 1930
Douglas v. Westfall, 85 Minn. 437 , , 57 L. R. A. 297, 89 A. S. R. 571; Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 A. S. R. 394; Doyle v. Wagner, 108 Minn. 443 , ; In re Lee, 171 Minn. 182 , ; Abrahamson v. Sundman, 174 Minn. 22 , ; Dennis v. Swanson, 176 Minn. 267 , ; In re Juran, 178 Minn. 55 , .
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Duluth 189 N.W. 937 Minn. 1922
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Duluth 189 N.W. 937 Minn. 1922
State v. Barge, 82 Minn. 256 , , 53 L. R. A. 428; Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197, 211 , , 116 Am.
Integrity Mutual Casualty Co. v. Nelson 183 N.W. 837 Minn. 1921
Integrity Mutual Casualty Co. v. Nelson 183 N.W. 837 Minn. 1921
Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 Am.
State ex rel. Scherber v. Probate Court of Hennepin County 177 N.W. 354 Minn. 1920
State ex rel. Scherber v. Probate Court of Hennepin County 177 N.W. 354 Minn. 1920
Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 Am.
Hammel v. Feigh 173 N.W. 570 Minn. 1919
Hammel v. Feigh 173 N.W. 570 Minn. 1919
1916D, 4 ; Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 Am.
Henry v. White 143 N.W. 324 Minn. 1913
Henry v. White 143 N.W. 324 Minn. 1913
571; Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 Am.
Arnold v. Smith 140 N.W. 748 Minn. 1913
Arnold v. Smith 140 N.W. 748 Minn. 1913
Mr. Justice Bunn has recently delivered an opinion upon a kindred question in Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , and the reasoning of that case is applicable here, as is also that of Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 Am.
Riley v. Pearson 139 N.W. 361 Minn. 1913
Riley v. Pearson 139 N.W. 361 Minn. 1913
Dewey v. Kimball, 89 Minn. 454 , , ; Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197, 204 , , 116 Am.
Doyle v. Wagner 122 N.W. 316 Minn. 1909
Doyle v. Wagner 122 N.W. 316 Minn. 1909
In Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 Am.
Wellner v. Eckstein 117 N.W. 830 Minn. 1908