Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Sheehan v. Reed, 156 N.W. 128.
-
Juan Cuate v. Pedro Cuate-Dominguez
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Ass’n, (in a property tax appeal concerning iron mining leases, defining rent as “the compensation which the occupier pays the landlord for that species of occupation which the contract between them allows” (quotation omitted)).
-
Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester
642 N.W.2d 1
Minn. 2002
8 See State v. Royal Mineral Ass’n, 132 Minn. 232, 236 , (“[T]he term ‘credits,’ as used in the taxing statutes, embraces only choses in action which are in their nature personal property.”); Mattson v. Minnesota & N. Wis.
-
Nelson's Office Supply Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner
508 N.W.2d 776
Minn. 1993
burse the lessor, among other things, for the categories of payment in this case.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines “rent” as “consideration paid for use or occupation of property.” And this court, in 1916, described “rent” as “compensation which the occupier pays the landlord for that species of occupation which the contract between them allows.” State v. Royal Mineral Ass’n., 132 Minn. 232, 235
-
Matter of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties
263 N.W.2d 610
Minn. 1978
158 (1917); State v. Royal Mineral Assn., 132 Minn. 232 , State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , 108 N.W.
-
Wojahn v. Faul
51 N.W.2d 97
Minn. 1952
2 State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.
-
Hassler v. Engberg
48 N.W.2d 343
Minn. 1951
Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
-
State v. Longyear Holding Co.
29 N.W.2d 657
Minn. 1947
Co. 143 Minn. 271 , ; Boeing v. Owsley, 122 Minn. 190 , ; and State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
-
Ambrozich v. City of Eveleth
274 N.W. 635
Minn. 1937
There is no provision in the statute for proving or allowing any such mere contingency as a claim against the estate of an insolvent.” In State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232, 236 , , Ann. Cas.
-
Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Brown
230 N.W. 780
Minn. 1930
Boeing v. Owsley, 122 Minn. 190 , ; State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
-
Marble v. Oliver Iron Mining Co.
215 N.W. 71
Minn. 1927
Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
-
State Ex Rel. Inter-State Iron Co. v. Armson
207 N.W. 727
Minn. 1926
Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
-
O'Brien v. Liberty Mining Co.
204 N.W. 625
Minn. 1925
State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232, 235 , , Ann. Cas.
-
State v. Peterson
198 N.W. 1011
Minn. 1924
In State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
-
Dohs v. Holm
189 N.W. 418
Minn. 1922
128 Minn. 384 , ; State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
-
Vanderburgh v. Vanderburgh
188 N.W. 276
Minn. 1922
Quoting from State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
-
Orr v. Bennett
161 N.W. 165
Minn. 1917
In view of two conflicting provisions of the lease, that question is not clear.’ The lease is not the same as those construed in State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , .
-
Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Douglas
161 N.W. 158
Minn. 1917
Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , it is now settled law in this state that royalties under mining leases constitute rents and profits from land.