Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co., 173 N.W. 805.

40 citing documents.

Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709 215 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1974
Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 709 215 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1974
Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , Satren v. Hader Co-op.
Hawkins v. Talbot 80 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1957
Hawkins v. Talbot 80 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1957
An action may he brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance, and by the judgment the nuisance may be enjoined or abated, as well as damages recovered.” 12 See, also, Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092.
Robinson v. Westman 29 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1947
Robinson v. Westman 29 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1947
Lynch v. Shiely, 131 Minn. 346 , ; Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092.
Herrmann v. Larson 7 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1943
Herrmann v. Larson 7 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1943
“A prescriptive right to maintain a nuisance cannot arise unless the nuisance has continued in substantially the same way and with equally injurious results for the entire statutory period.” Matthews v. Stillwater G. & E. L. Co. 63 Minn. 493 , ; Brede v. Minnesota C. S. Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092; Satren v. Hader Co-op.
Jedneak v. Minneapolis General Electric Co. 4 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1942
Jedneak v. Minneapolis General Electric Co. 4 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1942
The plaintiffs strenuously object to this instruction as being destructive of the scope of the statute and contrary to the decision law of this state, relying chiefly upon Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092.
Satren v. Hader Co-Operative Cheese Factory 279 N.W. 361 Minn. 1938
Satren v. Hader Co-Operative Cheese Factory 279 N.W. 361 Minn. 1938
Matthews v. Stillwater G. & E. L. Co. 63 Minn. 493 , ; Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. *557 374, , 6 A. L. R. 1092.
Nelson v. McKenzie-hague Co. 256 N.W. 96 Minn. 1934
O'Malley v. MacKen 234 N.W. 323 Minn. 1931
Heller v. American Range Corp. 234 N.W. 316 Minn. 1931
Heller v. American Range Corp. 234 N.W. 316 Minn. 1931
Brede v. Minnesota C. S. Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092; Millett v. Minnesota C. S. Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , ; Roukovina v. Island F. C. Co. 160 Minn. 335 , , 38 A. L. R. 1502.
O'Malley v. MacKen 234 N.W. 323 Minn. 1931
Brede v. Minnesota C. S. Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092; Millett v. Minnesota C. S. Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , .
Bohrer v. Village of Inver Grove 207 N.W. 721 Minn. 1926
Bohrer v. Village of Inver Grove 207 N.W. 721 Minn. 1926
And see Nienow v. Village of Mapleton, 144 Minn. 60 , ; Joyce v. Village of Janesville, 132 Minn. 121 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 426; Brede v. Minn. C. S. Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092; Millett v. Minn. C. S. Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , ; Batcher v. City of Staples, 120 Minn. 86 , ; Sloggy v. Dilworth, 38 Minn. 179 , , 8 Am.
State Ex Rel. v. Houghton 204 N.W. 569 Minn. 1925
State ex rel. Beery v. Houghton 204 N.W. 569 Minn. 1925
State Ex Rel. v. Houghton 204 N.W. 569 Minn. 1925
Brede v. Minn. Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , 173 N.W.
State ex rel. Beery v. Houghton 204 N.W. 569 Minn. 1925
Brede v. Minn. Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092; Millett v. Minn. Crushed Stone Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , ; Id.
Roukovina v. Island Farm Creamery Co. 200 N.W. 350 Minn. 1924
Roukovina v. Island Farm Creamery Co. 200 N.W. 350 Minn. 1924
For a full exposition of our position on the question, reference need only be made to Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , .
State v. John Wunder Co. 196 N.W. 961 Minn. 1924
State v. John Wunder Co. 196 N.W. 961 Minn. 1924
See Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092 and 146 Minn. 406 , , .
Meyers v. City of Minneapolis 189 N.W. 709 Minn. 1922
Meyers v. City of Minneapolis 189 N.W. 709 Minn. 1922
Plaintiff is the present owner of the stone quarry involved in Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092, and 146 Minn. 406 , , , and alleges facts tending to show that it would be useless for him to apply for a permit.
Reed v. Village of Hibbing 184 N.W. 842 Minn. 1921
Reed v. Village of Hibbing 184 N.W. 842 Minn. 1921
It cannot now be said upon this record that no mining operations can be carried on in the townsite within the rules enunciated in Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A.L.R.
Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 178 N.W. 820 Minn. 1920
Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 178 N.W. 820 Minn. 1920
Brede v. Minn. Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , .
Arizona Hercules Copper Co. v. Protestant Episcopal Church Corp. 190 P. 85 Ariz. 1920
Millett v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 177 N.W. 641 Minn. 1920
Millett v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 177 N.W. 641 Minn. 1920
The rules governing liability of the defendant are those stated fully in Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , .
State ex rel. Twin City Building & Investment Co. v. Houghton 174 N.W. 885 Minn. 1919
Nienow v. Village of Mapleton 174 N.W. 517 Minn. 1919
Nienow v. Village of Mapleton 174 N.W. 517 Minn. 1919
Co. 126 Minn. 470, 474 , ; Joyce v. Village of Janesville, supra; Brede v. Minn. Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , .
State ex rel. Twin City Building & Investment Co. v. Houghton 174 N.W. 885 Minn. 1919
Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , .