Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 111 N.W. 840.

38 citing documents.

A. C. E. Equipment Co. v. Erickson 152 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1967
A. C. E. Equipment Co. v. Erickson 152 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1967
Freeman v. Zimmerman, 86 Minn. 353 , , 58 L. R. A. 78; Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , ; Turner v. Snyder, 101 Minn. 481 , ; Schigley v. City of Waseca, 106 Minn. 94 , , 19 L. R. A. (N.S.)
State Ex Rel. Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston 91 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1958
State Ex Rel. Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston 91 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1958
Freeman v. Zimmerman, 86 Minn. 353 , , 58 L. R. A. 78; Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , ; Turner v. Snyder, 101 Minn. 481 , ; Schigley v. City of Waseca, 106 Minn. 94 , , 19 L.R.A.
Mitchell v. City of St. Paul 36 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1949
Mitchell v. City of St. Paul 36 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1949
In 1907, we held in Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , , that a home rule charter provision governing the presentation of notice of claim against the city adopted subsequent to the enactment of c. 248 was valid as an exercise of legislative power with respect to matters “germane to the subject of municipal legislation” possessed by the voters in adopting a
Kaehler v. Kaehler 18 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1945
Kaehler v. Kaehler 18 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1945
Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , ; Casey v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. 108 Minn. 197 , ; Lindbloom v. Lindbloom, 180 Minn. 33 , ; Nelson v. Babcock, 188 Minn. 581 , ; Greear v. Paust, 192 Minn. 287 , ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
Service & Security, Inc. v. St. Paul Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 300 N.W. 811 Minn. 1941
Service & Security, Inc. v. St. Paul Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 300 N.W. 811 Minn. 1941
Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , ; Casey v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. 108 Minn. 497 , ; Cohoon v. Lake Region Produce Co. 188 Minn. 429 , .
Szroka v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 213 N.W. 557 Minn. 1927
Szroka v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 213 N.W. 557 Minn. 1927
Paul, 72 Minn. 539 , ; Doyle v. City of Duluth, 74 Minn. 157 , ; Engstrom v. City of Minneapolis, 78 Minn. 200 , ; Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , ; Mitchell v. Village of Chisholm, 116 Minn. 323 , ; Wornecka v. City of St.
Cohen v. Silverman 190 N.W. 795 Minn. 1922
Cohen v. Silverman 190 N.W. 795 Minn. 1922
Clark v. City of Austin, 38 Minn. 487 , ; Adams v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 30 , ; Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , .
State ex rel. Smith v. City of International Falls 156 N.W. 249 Minn. 1916
State ex rel. Smith v. City of International Falls 156 N.W. 249 Minn. 1916
Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , ; Turner v. Snyder, 101 Minn. 481 , ; American Electric Co. v. City of Waseca, 102 Minn. 329 , .
Riley v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 156 N.W. 272 Minn. 1916
Riley v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 156 N.W. 272 Minn. 1916
Adams v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 30 , ; Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , ; Clark v. City of Austin, 38 Minn. 487 , .
Hjelm v. City of St. Cloud 152 N.W. 408 Minn. 1915
Hjelm v. City of St. Cloud 152 N.W. 408 Minn. 1915
Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , ; Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , ; Schigley v. City of Waseca, 106 Minn. 94 , , 19 L.R.A.
Staples v. East St. Paul State Bank 142 N.W. 721 Minn. 1913
Staples v. East St. Paul State Bank 142 N.W. 721 Minn. 1913
Naeseth v. Hommedal, 109 Minn. 153 , ; Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , ; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Naeseth v. Hommedal 123 N.W. 287 Minn. 1909
Naeseth v. Hommedal 123 N.W. 287 Minn. 1909
Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , .
Casey v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 122 N.W. 376 Minn. 1909
Casey v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 122 N.W. 376 Minn. 1909
Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , .
Wickstrom v. Swanson 120 N.W. 1090 Minn. 1909
Wickstrom v. Swanson 120 N.W. 1090 Minn. 1909
Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62, 64 , .
Schigley v. City of Waseca 118 N.W. 259 Minn. 1908
Schigley v. City of Waseca 118 N.W. 259 Minn. 1908
In Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , , it was held that the subject of notice to a municipality of claims for damages incurred by reason of defects in the streets as a condition precedent to maintaining an action therefor was relevant to the subject of municipal legislation, and that the provisions of the charter with respect to that subj
State ex rel. Latshaw v. Board of Water & Light Commissioners 117 N.W. 827 Minn. 1908
State ex rel. Latshaw v. Board of Water & Light Commissioners 117 N.W. 827 Minn. 1908
458, 471 , 41 S. W. 943 ; Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , ; City of East Grand Forks v. Luck, 97 Minn. 373 , , 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 198; Turner v. Snyder, 101 Minn. 481 , ; American Electric Co. v. City of Waseca, 102 Minn. 329 , ; Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , ; Howe v. City, 70 N. J. Eq.
Anderson v. International Harvester Co. of America 116 N.W. 101 Minn. 1908
Anderson v. International Harvester Co. of America 116 N.W. 101 Minn. 1908
Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , .
American Electric Co. v. City of Waseca 113 N.W. 899 Minn. 1907
American Electric Co. v. City of Waseca 113 N.W. 899 Minn. 1907
Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45 , ; Peterson v. City of Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62 , ; Turner v. Snyder, 101 Minn. 481 , .
Turner v. Snyder 112 N.W. 868 Minn. 1907
Turner v. Snyder 112 N.W. 868 Minn. 1907
Again, in the case of Peterson v. City of Red Wing, supra, p. 62 ( ), an action was brought against the city for the recovery of damages for personal injuries.