Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fairley v. City of Duluth, 185 N.W. 390.

30 citing documents.

Fichtner v. Schiller 135 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1965
Fichtner v. Schiller 135 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1965
They cite as controlling Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374 , , 32 A. L. R. 1258, which involved a class action contesting the validity of a wheelage tax imposed by an ordinance of the city of Duluth.
Larson v. Freeborn County 126 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1964
Larson v. Freeborn County 126 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1964
Appellants rely for reversal *385 on Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374 , , 32 A. L. R. 1258; Johnson v. County of Steele, 240 Minn. 154 , 60 N. W. (2d) 32 ; and Janssen v. County of Chippewa, 256 Minn. 182 , 98 N. W. (2d) 239 .
Thorn v. George A. Hormel & Co. 289 N.W. 516 Minn. 1940
Thorn v. George A. Hormel & Co. 289 N.W. 516 Minn. 1940
Kaufer v. Ford, 100 Minn. 49 , ; Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374 , , 32 A. L. R. 1258; Fitchette v. Taylor, 191 Minn. 582 , , 94 A. L. R. 356, are cited by plaintiffs as authorizing a class suit in the instant case.
State v. White 222 N.W. 918 Minn. 1929
State v. White 222 N.W. 918 Minn. 1929
Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374 , , 32 A. L. R. 1258; Dohs v. Holm, 152 Minn. 529 , .
American Railway Express Co. v. Holm 216 N.W. 542 Minn. 1927
American Railway Express Co. v. Holm 216 N.W. 542 Minn. 1927
In our early cases, for instance, Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374 , , 32 A. L. R. 1258, followed by several others, we considered the motor vehicle tax as a property tax.
American Railway Express Co. v. Holm 211 N.W. 467 Minn. 1926
American Railway Express Co. v. Holm 211 N.W. 467 Minn. 1926
Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374 , , 32 A. L. R. 1258; Dohs v. Holm, 152 Minn. 529, 531 , ; State v. Peterson, 159 Minn. 269 , ; State v. Oligney, 162 Minn. 302 , .
Minnehaha Parkway v. City of Minneapolis 208 N.W. 998 Minn. 1926
Raymond v. Holm 206 N.W. 166 Minn. 1925
Raymond v. Holm 206 N.W. 166 Minn. 1925
As supporting their claim that the act imposes a property tax only, relators cite Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374 , , 32 A. L. R. 1258; Dohs v. Holm, 152 Minn. 529 , ; Jefferson H. T. Co. v. City of St.
State v. Oligney 202 N.W. 893 Minn. 1925
State v. Oligney 202 N.W. 893 Minn. 1925
In Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374 , , 32 A. L. R. 1258, we said that the tax on motor vehicles is an ad *307 valorem or value tax.
State v. Peterson 198 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1924
State v. Peterson 198 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1924
Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374 , ; Dohs v. Holm, 152 Minn. 529 , .
In re the Proceeding's to Obtain Judgment for Delinquent Real Estate Taxes for the Year 1920 193 N.W. 459 Minn. 1923
Goldman v. Christy 192 N.W. 360 Minn. 1923
Goldman v. Christy 192 N.W. 360 Minn. 1923
Kaufer v. Ford, 100 Minn. 49 , ; Murphy v. County of Scott, 125 Minn. 461 , ; Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374 , .
Braddock Iron Mining Co. v. Erskine 192 N.W. 193 Minn. 1923
Braddock Iron Mining Co. v. Erskine 192 N.W. 193 Minn. 1923
Tbe remark of the court in Wall v. Borgen in commenting on the case of Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374 , , that the automobile owner might pay under protest the wheelage tax and then sue to recover the tax, had reference to the drastic remedies for enforcement of that tax and was not intended to overrule the Falvey case.
Dohs v. Holm 189 N.W. 418 Minn. 1922
Dohs v. Holm 189 N.W. 418 Minn. 1922
It must be borne in mind that the legislature was providing for the imposition of a tax on1 property in lieu of all other taxes, Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374 , , and that the act must be viewed in that light.
Wall v. Borgen 188 N.W. 159 Minn. 1922
Wall v. Borgen 188 N.W. 159 Minn. 1922
of Wright County, 97 Minn. 74 , ; State v. Board of P. W. of City of Fed Wing, 134 Minn. 204 , ; Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374 , .
Flour City Fuel & Transfer Co. v. Young 185 N.W. 934 Minn. 1921
Flour City Fuel & Transfer Co. v. Young 185 N.W. 934 Minn. 1921
§ 8936, and cases cited; Fairley v. City of Duluth, supra, page 374, ; Bofferding v. Mengelkoch, 129 Minn. 184 , ; State v. Ryder, 126 Minn. 95 , , 5 A.L.R.