Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Becklin v. Becklin, 109 N.W. 243.

39 citing documents.

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.
In Re Estate of Cravens 225 N.W. 398 Minn. 1929
In Re Estate of Cravens 225 N.W. 398 Minn. 1929
Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , .
Mathison v. Meyer 199 N.W. 173 Minn. 1924
Mathison v. Meyer 199 N.W. 173 Minn. 1924
Under the rule of Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , , so sweeping a change cannot result from so slight a change in phraseology.
First National Bank v. Wiggins 191 N.W. 264 Minn. 1922
First National Bank v. Wiggins 191 N.W. 264 Minn. 1922
Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , ; Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Simmons v. Northern Pacific Railroad 180 N.W. 114 Minn. 1920
Simmons v. Northern Pacific Railroad 180 N.W. 114 Minn. 1920
Manson v. Village of Chisholm, 142 Minn. 94 , ; Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , .
Manson v. Village of Chisholm 170 N.W. 924 Minn. 1919
Manson v. Village of Chisholm 170 N.W. 924 Minn. 1919
Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307, 312 , .
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, 112 Minn. 512 , .
State v. Minneapolis Milk Co. 144 N.W. 417 Minn. 1913
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 , .
Austro-Hungarian Consul v. G. A. Westphal 139 N.W. 300 Minn. 1912
Austro-Hungarian Consul v. G. A. Westphal 139 N.W. 300 Minn. 1912
Hugo v. Miller, 50 Minn. 105, 111 , ; Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307, 311 , ; Evans v. City of Redwood Falls, 103 Minn. 314 , ; Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188, 191 , ; Odegard v. Lemire, 107 Minn. 315, 317 , ; State v. Ledbeter, 111 Minn. 110 , ; U. S. & Canada Land Co. v. Sullivan, 113 Minn. 27
Duluth Terminal Railway Co. v. City of Duluth 130 N.W. 18 Minn. 1911
Duluth Terminal Railway Co. v. City of Duluth 130 N.W. 18 Minn. 1911
Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , .
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. 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 , .
State v. Barnes 122 N.W. 11 Minn. 1909
State v. Barnes 122 N.W. 11 Minn. 1909
Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , ; State v. McDonald, 101 Minn. 349 , .
State v. Doyle 120 N.W. 902 Minn. 1909
State v. Doyle 120 N.W. 902 Minn. 1909
Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , .
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