Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Alice, 127 N.W. 1118.

36 citing documents.

Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington 128 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1964
Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington 128 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1964
Simpson v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , ; State ex rel.
Grudnosky v. Bislow 88 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1958
Grudnosky v. Bislow 88 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1958
Simpson v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , ; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Township of Copley v. Village of Webb 83 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1957
State Ex Rel. Township of Copley v. Village of Webb 83 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1957
Simpson v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , ; State ex rel.
Thorland v. Independent Consolidated School District No. 44 74 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1956
In Re Certain School Districts, Freeborn County 246 Minn. 96 Minn. 1956
In Re Certain School Districts, Freeborn County 246 Minn. 96 Minn. 1956
74, 539 ; State v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , 127 N.W.
Thorland v. Independent Consolidated School District No. 44 74 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1956
State v. Village of Dover, 113 Minn. 452 , ; State v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , .” This rule, we think, is in harmony with the great weight of authority.
State Ex Rel. Danielson v. Village of Mound 48 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1951
State Ex Rel. Danielson v. Village of Mound 48 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1951
Simpson v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , ; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Northern Pump Co. v. Village of Fridley 47 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1951
State Ex Rel. Northern Pump Co. v. Village of Fridley 47 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1951
Simpson v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330, 332 , .
State Ex Rel. Burnquist v. So-Called Village of St. Anthony 26 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1947
State Ex Rel. Burnquist v. So-Called Village of St. Anthony 26 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1947
Simpson v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330, 332 , : * * The final test is whether the platted territory and the adjacent territory are so limited in area and have such a natural connection, and the people residing thereon have such a community of interest, that the whole may be properly subjected to village government.” ' We think that, as the r
State Ex Rel. Burnquist v. Village of Leetonia 298 N.W. 717 Minn. 1941
State Ex Rel. Burnquist v. Village of Leetonia 298 N.W. 717 Minn. 1941
Simpson v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330, 332 , .
State Ex Rel. Erickson v. Gram 210 N.W. 616 Minn. 1926
State Ex Rel. Erickson v. Gram 210 N.W. 616 Minn. 1926
State v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , ; State v. Village of Dover 113 Minn. 452 , ; State v. Kinney, 146 Minn. 311 , .
State Ex Rel. v. So-Called "Village of Minnewashta" 206 N.W. 455 Minn. 1925
State Ex Rel. v. So-Called "Village of Minnewashta" 206 N.W. 455 Minn. 1925
v. Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , .
State ex rel. Hilton v. City of Nashwauk 186 N.W. 694 Minn. 1922
State ex rel. Hilton v. City of Nashwauk 186 N.W. 694 Minn. 1922
* * * It was never designed that remote territory, having no natural connection with the village, and no adaptability to village purposes, should be included.” In State v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , , Chief Justice Start, citing the Minnetonka case, stated the test of urban character as follows [page 332]: “Whether the adjacent territory may be properly subjected to village government is not to be determined by the pecuniary interests of the owners thereof; but their land cannot arbitrari
State ex rel. Hilton v. Village of Buhl 184 N.W. 850 Minn. 1921
State ex rel. Hilton v. Village of Buhl 184 N.W. 850 Minn. 1921
Adjoining lands may be brought within the limits of the corporation and be subjected to village government, if it may fairly be said that there exists, or may exist within a reasonable time in the future, a unity of interest in the enforcement of law, such as police patrol and the public health.” In State v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , , the court, referring to the same matter, said [p. 333] : “Whether the adjacent territory may be properly subjected to village government is not to be dete
State ex rel. Hilton v. Village of Kinney 178 N.W. 815 Minn. 1920
State ex rel. Hilton v. Village of Kinney 178 N.W. 815 Minn. 1920
And in the ease of State v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , , it was held that the fact that the lands included “are suitable for *315 mining purposes might be a reason why it would be proper so to include them; for lands of that class may, and usually do, derive a benefit in many ways from being included within the limits of a municipality, such as the benefi
State ex rel. Smith v. Village of Gilbert 149 N.W. 951 Minn. 1914
State ex rel. Smith v. Village of Gilbert 149 N.W. 951 Minn. 1914
In State v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , , the conditions of the lands incorporated I into a village were very similar to the territory here in question.
Schweigert v. Abbott 142 N.W. 723 Minn. 1913
Schweigert v. Abbott 142 N.W. 723 Minn. 1913
State v. Village of Dover, 113 Minn. 452 , ; State v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , .
State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Alice 130 N.W. 948 Minn. 1911
State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Alice 130 N.W. 948 Minn. 1911
State v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , .
State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Dover 130 N.W. 74 Minn. 1911
State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Dover 130 N.W. 74 Minn. 1911
In State v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , , the very sweeping statement of facts in the answer was sustained, under the liberal rule applied to the .construction of pleadings on demurrer.