Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Stroschein, 109 N.W. 235.

52 citing documents.

Mankato Citizens Telephone Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation 145 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1966
Mankato Citizens Telephone Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation 145 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1966
In State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248, 250 , , this court said: “* * * The rules for interpretation of revised statutes or codes resolve themselves into one inquiry, applicable alike to the construction of all legislative enactments, viz., the legislative intent.
Mahnke v. Northwest Publications, Inc. 124 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1963
Mahnke v. Northwest Publications, Inc. 124 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1963
This court said ( 99 Minn. 248 , ): “It does not follow that because some portions of a published article may not be libelous per se, when considered separately, the notice must specify each particular part which contains the essence of the false and defamatory matter.” Uhlman v. Farm, Stock & Home Co. supra, involved a libel suit
In Re Trust Created by Phillips 90 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1958
In Re Trust Created by Phillips 90 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1958
Decker v. Montague, 195 Minn. 278 , ; State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , ; Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , ; § 645.05.
Village of Tonka Bay v. Commissioner of Taxation 64 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1954
Village of Tonka Bay v. Commissioner of Taxation 64 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1954
Co. v. Kent, 233 Minn. 31 , 45 N. W. (2d) 709 ; Welscher v. Myhre, 231 Minn. 33 , 42 N. W. (2d) 311 ; State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , ; see, 6 Dunnell, Dig.
Kaljuste v. Hennepin County Sanatorium Commission 61 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1953
Kaljuste v. Hennepin County Sanatorium Commission 61 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1953
1914D, 125; State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , ; Christgau v. Woodlawn Cemetery Assn. 208 Minn. 263, 273 , .
Sterling Electric Co. v. Kent 45 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1951
Sterling Electric Co. v. Kent 45 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1951
Champ v. Brown, 197 Minn. 49 , ; State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , .
Welscher v. Myhre 42 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1950
Welscher v. Myhre 42 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1950
4) without the retention of the words “of any road or.” In State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248, 250 , , we said: “* * * The rules for the interpretation of revised statutes or codes resolve themselves into one inquiry, applicable alike to the construction of áll legislative enactments, viz., the legislative intent.
Wenger v. Wenger 274 N.W. 517 Minn. 1937
Wenger v. Wenger 274 N.W. 517 Minn. 1937
In State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , , it was held that prior statutes may be resorted to for the purpose of solving, but not to create, an ambiguity, and if the language of the revision indicates an intention to adopt the meaning of a prior statute, the revised statute will be given that effect.
Champ v. Brown 266 N.W. 94 Minn. 1936
Champ v. Brown 266 N.W. 94 Minn. 1936
See State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , ; State v. Hovorka, 100 Minn. 249, 250-251 , , 8 L.R.A.
In Re Estate of Cravens 225 N.W. 398 Minn. 1929
In Re Estate of Cravens 225 N.W. 398 Minn. 1929
“Prior statutes may be resorted to for the purpose of solving, but not to create, an ambiguity.” State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248, 251 , .
Manson v. Village of Chisholm 170 N.W. 924 Minn. 1919
Manson v. Village of Chisholm 170 N.W. 924 Minn. 1919
State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , .
Town of Iona v. County of Todd 160 N.W. 669 Minn. 1916
Town of Iona v. County of Todd 160 N.W. 669 Minn. 1916
State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , ; Williams v. Reid, 130 Minn. 256 , .
Swenson v. Lewison 160 N.W. 253 Minn. 1916
Swenson v. Lewison 160 N.W. 253 Minn. 1916
State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , ; State v. Minneapolis Milk Co. 124 Minn. 34 , , 51 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Wipperman Mercantile Co. v. Jacobson 158 N.W. 606 Minn. 1916
Wipperman Mercantile Co. v. Jacobson 158 N.W. 606 Minn. 1916
As said in State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , , the cardinal rule of construction is to arrive at the legislative intent.
State ex rel. Clark v. Jack 148 N.W. 306 Minn. 1914
State ex rel. Clark v. Jack 148 N.W. 306 Minn. 1914
State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , ; Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , ; State v. McDonald, 101 Minn. 349 , ; Evans v. City of Redwood Falls, 103 Minn. 314 , ; State v. Barnes, 108 Minn. 230 , ; Northwestern Trust Co. v. Bradbury, 112 Minn. 76 , ; Lockey v. Lockey, 11
State v. Minneapolis Milk Co. 144 N.W. 417 Minn. 1913
State v. Minneapolis Milk Co. 144 N.W. 417 Minn. 1913
Ct. 155, 44 L. ed. 219; State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , .
Thompson v. Peterson 142 N.W. 307 Minn. 1913
Thompson v. Peterson 142 N.W. 307 Minn. 1913
In fact the presumption is that no change was intended, and the new will be construed as a continuation of the old law unless an intention to change it clearly appears: State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , ; Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , ; Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188 , ; Evans v. City of Redwood Falls, 103 Minn. 314 , .
Lockey v. Lockey 128 N.W. 833 Minn. 1910
Lockey v. Lockey 128 N.W. 833 Minn. 1910
There is no presumption that a change was intended, and the revised statute will not be construed as “altering the law, unless it is clear that such was the intention.” Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , ; State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , .
Northwestern Trust Co. v. Bradbury 127 N.W. 386 Minn. 1910
Northwestern Trust Co. v. Bradbury 127 N.W. 386 Minn. 1910
State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , ; *79 Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , ; State v. Hovorka, 100 Minn. 249 , , 8 L.R.A.(N.S.)
State v. Schmidt 126 N.W. 487 Minn. 1910
State v. Schmidt 126 N.W. 487 Minn. 1910
State v. Corcoran, supra; State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , .
State v. Ledbeter 126 N.W. 477 Minn. 1910
State v. Ledbeter 126 N.W. 477 Minn. 1910
State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , ; Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , ; Evans v. City of Redwood Falls, 103 Minn. 314, 317 , .
Odegard v. Lemire 119 N.W. 1057 Minn. 1909
Odegard v. Lemire 119 N.W. 1057 Minn. 1909
State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , ; Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , .
Schmoll v. Lucht 118 N.W. 555 Minn. 1908
Schmoll v. Lucht 118 N.W. 555 Minn. 1908
Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , ; State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , .
Evans v. City of Redwood Falls 115 N.W. 200 Minn. 1908
Evans v. City of Redwood Falls 115 N.W. 200 Minn. 1908
Under the rule of construction applied in Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307, , and State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , 109 N. *318 W. 235 , the present statute must be construed as the continuance of the prior law.
State v. Hovorka 110 N.W. 870 Minn. 1907
State v. Hovorka 110 N.W. 870 Minn. 1907
The rule for the construction of Revised Laws permits a reference to prior pertinent enactments for the purpose *251 •of resolving whatever ambiguities or uncertainties may be found in the new (State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , ; Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , ), but for no other purpose; :so that, whatever may have been the state of the law prior to the Revision of 1905, it is now clear and must be construed without refer•ence to previously existing statutes, and that the subject-matter t