Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Prall v. District Court, 148 N.W. 463.

34 citing documents.

Res Investment Co. v. County of Dakota 494 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Res Investment Co. v. County of Dakota 494 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Prall v. District Court of Waseca County, 126 Minn. 501, 503 , 148 N.W., 463, 463-64 (1914) (mandamus may compel the exercise of jurisdiction when public officers have no discretion to decline jurisdiction).
McLean Distributing Co. v. Brewery & Beverage Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local No. 993 94 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1959
McLean Distributing Co. v. Brewery & Beverage Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local No. 993 94 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1959
Prall v. District Court, 126 Minn. 501, 503 , , the proper use of a writ of mandamus is stated as follows: “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy.
Hill v. Upper Mississippi Towing Corp. 89 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1958
Hill v. Upper Mississippi Towing Corp. 89 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1958
Prall v. District Court, 126 Minn. 501 , ; Union Pac.
Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad 66 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1954
Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad 66 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1954
Prall v. District Court, 126 Minn. 501 , .
State Ex Rel. Gresham v. Delaney 6 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1942
State Ex Rel. Gresham v. Delaney 6 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1942
Prall v. District Court, 126 Minn. 501 , , Ann. Cas.
Spannaus v. Lueck 279 N.W. 216 Minn. 1938
Spannaus v. Lueck 279 N.W. 216 Minn. 1938
Prall v. District Court, 126 Minn. 501 , , Ann. Cas.
State Ex Rel. Jenkins v. Ernest 268 N.W. 208 Minn. 1936
State Ex Rel. Jenkins v. Ernest 268 N.W. 208 Minn. 1936
Prall v. District Court, 126 Minn. 501 , , Ann. Cas.
State Ex Rel. Preis v. District Court 243 N.W. 434 Minn. 1932
State Ex Rel. Preis v. District Court 243 N.W. 434 Minn. 1932
Prall v. District Court, 126 Minn. 501 , , Ann. Cas.
Boright v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 230 N.W. 457 Minn. 1930
Boright v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 230 N.W. 457 Minn. 1930
Prall v. District Court, 126 Minn. 501 , , Ann. Cas.
State Ex Rel. Boright v. District Court of Steele County 226 N.W. 569 Minn. 1929
State Ex Rel. Boright v. District Court of Steele County 226 N.W. 569 Minn. 1929
Prall v. District Court, 126 Minn. 501 , , Ann. Cas.
Erving v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 214 N.W. 12 Minn. 1927
Erving v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 214 N.W. 12 Minn. 1927
Prall v. District Court, 126 Minn. 501 , , Ann. Cas.
Swanson v. Alworth 198 N.W. 453 Minn. 1924
Swanson v. Alworth 198 N.W. 453 Minn. 1924
Prall v. District Court, 126 Minn. 501 , , Ann. Cas.
Schendel ex rel. Schendel v. District Court 194 N.W. 780 Minn. 1923
Schendel ex rel. Schendel v. District Court 194 N.W. 780 Minn. 1923
“As the Congress has deemed it proper and desirable to confer jurisdiction as provided for in section 6 of this act, that provision is not to be defeated by an effort at refined distinction.” There is nothing in State v. District Court of Waseca County, 126 Minn. 501 , , particularly important here.
Mingo v. Holleran 191 N.W. 416 Minn. 1922
Mingo v. Holleran 191 N.W. 416 Minn. 1922
The case in this respect is within the rule stated in State v. District Court of Waseca County, 126 Minn. 501 , , Ann. Cas.
State ex rel. Early v. Wunderlich 175 N.W. 677 Minn. 1920
State ex rel. Early v. Wunderlich 175 N.W. 677 Minn. 1920
9; State v. District Court of Waseca County, 126 Minn. 501 , , Ann. Cas.
State ex rel. Bossung v. District Court of Hennepin County 168 N.W. 589 Minn. 1918
State ex rel. Bossung v. District Court of Hennepin County 168 N.W. 589 Minn. 1918
In State v. District Court of Waseca County, 126 Minn. 501 , , Ann. Cas.
Davis v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 159 N.W. 1084 Minn. 1916
Davis v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 159 N.W. 1084 Minn. 1916
State v. District Court of Waseca County, 126 Minn. 501 , , Ann. Cas.