Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Keever v. City of Mankato, 129 N.W. 158.

40 citing documents.

County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
at 769 (quoting Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55, 61 , 129 N.W.
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 802 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 802 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
These activities are considered proprietary not because the city seeks to make a profit but because the city voluntarily engages “in the same business which, when conducted by private persons, is operated for profit.” Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55, 61 , 129 N.W.
Susla v. State 247 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1976
Susla v. State 247 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1976
We observed in Hahn v. City of Ortonville, 238 Minn. 428, 435 , 57 N. W. (2d) 254, 260 [1953], ‘an enterprise is proprietary when it is profit making in the sense that when conducted by private persons it is operated for profit.’ And in [Keever v. City of Mankato, ( 113 Minn. 55, 62 , [1910])] we said: ‘When the municipality enters the field of ordinary private business, it does not exercise governmental powers.’ We are therefore of the opinion that, where the municipality undertakes in the oper
Reierson v. City of Minneapolis 118 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1962
Reierson v. City of Minneapolis 118 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1962
We held in Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , , 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 339, that in the operation of a waterworks system the municipality was engaged in a private enterprise for profit and was subject to the same liabilities as private persons.
Fabbrizi v. Village of Hibbing 66 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1954
Fabbrizi v. Village of Hibbing 66 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1954
3 Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , , 33 L.R.A.
Johnson v. County of Steele 60 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 1953
Johnson v. County of Steele 60 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 1953
See, e.g., Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , 129 N.W.
Hahn v. City of Ortonville 57 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1953
Hahn v. City of Ortonville 57 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1953
As held by this court in Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , , 33 L.R.A.
City of Phoenix v. Wright 80 P.2d 390 Ariz. 1938
Crandall v. Town of Safford 56 P.2d 660 Ariz. 1936
Storti v. Town of Fayal 261 N.W. 463 Minn. 1935
Storti v. Town of Fayal 261 N.W. 463 Minn. 1935
The cases of Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , , 33 L.R.A.
County of Anoka v. City of St. Paul 261 N.W. 368 Minn. 1935
County of Anoka v. City of St. Paul 261 N.W. 368 Minn. 1935
The right to draAV from them a supply of water for the ordinary use of cities in their AÚcinity is such a public use, and has always been so recognized.” *561 We are not unmindful here of Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , , 38 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Borwege v. City of Owatonna 251 N.W. 915 Minn. 1933
Borwege v. City of Owatonna 251 N.W. 915 Minn. 1933
Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , , 33 L.R.A.(N.S.)
City of Tucson v. Sims 4 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1931
St. John v. City of St. Paul 228 N.W. 170 Minn. 1929
St. John v. City of St. Paul 228 N.W. 170 Minn. 1929
Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , , 33 L.R.A.
Bang v. Independent School District No. 27 225 N.W. 449 Minn. 1929
Bang v. Independent School District No. 27 225 N.W. 449 Minn. 1929
Bang v. Independent School District No. 27 225 N.W. 449 Minn. 1929
62 Minn. 175 , , 29 L. R. A. 708 (society under allegations of complaint not organized solely for discharging a gov *460 ernmental function); Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , , 33 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Bang v. Independent School District No. 27 225 N.W. 449 Minn. 1929
708 (society under allegations of complaint not organized solely for discharging a governmental *Page 460 function); Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , 129 N.W.
Mokovich v. Independent School District No. 22 225 N.W. 292 Minn. 1929
Mokovich v. Independent School District No. 22 225 N.W. 292 Minn. 1929
Mokovich v. Independent School District No. 22 225 N.W. 292 Minn. 1929
Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , , 33 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Mokovich v. Independent School District No. 22 225 N.W. 292 Minn. 1929
Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , 129 N.W.
Sumid v. City of Prescott 230 P. 1103 Ariz. 1924
Emmons v. City of Virginia 188 N.W. 561 Minn. 1922
Emmons v. City of Virginia 188 N.W. 561 Minn. 1922
Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , , 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 339, Ann. Cas.
Frasch v. City of New Ulm 153 N.W. 121 Minn. 1915
Frasch v. City of New Ulm 153 N.W. 121 Minn. 1915
Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 225 , ; Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , , 33 L.R.A.(N.S.)
State ex rel. W. J. Armstrong Co. v. City of Waseca 142 N.W. 319 Minn. 1913
State ex rel. W. J. Armstrong Co. v. City of Waseca 142 N.W. 319 Minn. 1913
1049; Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55, 62, 63 , , 33 L.R.A.(N.S.)