Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Dover, 130 N.W. 74.

33 citing documents.

Grudnosky v. Bislow 88 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1958
Grudnosky v. Bislow 88 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1958
Simpson v. Village of Dover, 113 Minn. 452 , 130 N.W.
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
State v. Village of Dover, 113 Minn. 452 , 130 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. 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 Dover, 113 Minn. 452, 455 , 539 , the court, in passing upon the propriety of incorporating the proposed area as a village, said: “* * * Another statutory limitation is that the unplatted lands must be so conditioned as to be properly subject to village govern *449 ment.
State v. McCoy 38 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1949
Nemo v. Local Joint Executive Board & Hotel & Restaurant Employees' Local No. 556 35 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1948
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 Dover, 113 Minn. 452 , .
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 Dover, 113 Minn. 452 , ; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Smiley v. Holm 243 N.W. 133 Minn. 1932
State Ex Rel. Smiley v. Holm 243 N.W. 133 Minn. 1932
Simpson v. Village of Dover, 113 Minn. 452 , , it was held that where quo warranto proceedings are instituted by the attorney general as the representative of the sovereignty of the state, to redress an alleged usurpation of office or corporate franchise, he is not liable, officially or otherwise, to defendant for costs and disbursements in c
State Ex Rel. Koski v. Kylmanen 226 N.W. 401 Minn. 1929
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. 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
State v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330 , ; State v. Village of Dover, 313 Minn. 452 , ; State v. Village of Gilbert, 127 Minn. 452 , ; State v. Village of Kinney, 146 Minn. 311 , ; State v. Village of Buhl, 150 Minn. 203 , .
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
That was distinctly held in State v. Village of Dover, 113 Minn. 453 , .
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
But we held in State v. Village of Gilbert, 127 Minn. 452 , , that the unplatted territory annexed must have the same qualification as prescribed by section 1204, G. S. 1913, for like land in the original incorporation, namely, it “must be so conditioned as properly to be subjected to village government.” In the case cited, as well as in State v. Village of Dover, 113 Minn. 452 , , the anticipated occupation of the land in the near future by a population suitable to enjoy village government is r
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
State v. Village of Dover, 113 Minn. 452 , .
State v. Fullerton 144 N.W. 755 Minn. 1913
State v. Fullerton 144 N.W. 755 Minn. 1913
Co. 101 Minn. 192 , ) or to determine the legality of the organization of a municipal subdivision of the state, (State v. Village of Dover, 113 Minn. 452 , ) but not in an ordinary action for the recovery of money or property.
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
This conclusion is also sustained by the recent case of State v. Village of Dover, 113 Minn. 452 , .