Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 196 N.W. 666.
- Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. v. Chippewa/Swift Joint Bd. of Commissioners 925 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 2019
-
Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. v. Chippewa/Swift Joint Bd. of Commissioners
925 N.W.2d 244
Minn. 2019
(quoting Lupkes v. Town of Clifton , 157 Minn. 493 , 196 N.W.
- State Ex Rel. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources v. Kandiyohi County Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 359 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1984
- Hylen v. Owens 251 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1977
-
Hylen v. Owens
251 N.W.2d 858
Minn. 1977
Plaintiffs argue that “once a ditch is established the landowners have a vested right in the system that cannot be altered,” citing Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493
- Fischer v. Town of Albin 104 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 1960
-
Fischer v. Town of Albin
104 N.W.2d 32
Minn. 1960
1 To the same effect, see In re County Ditch No. 31 and Judicial Ditch No. 13, Faribault County, 244 Minn. 543 , 70 N. W. (2d) 853 ; Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , .
- In Re Petition of Lippmann 81 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1957
-
In Re Petition of Lippmann
81 N.W.2d 100
Minn. 1957
4 Appellants cite as controlling cases In re Petition for County Ditch No. 53, Chippewa County, supra; Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , ; Erhard v. Wagner, 104 Minn. 258 , *14 ; Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632.
- Oelke v. County of Faribault 70 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 1955
-
Oelke v. County of Faribault
70 N.W.2d 853
Minn. 1955
Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , ; In re Petition of Jacobson re County Ditch No. 24, 234 Minn. 296 , 48 N. W. (2d) 441 ; In re Petition for County Ditch No. 53, 238 Minn. 392 , 57 N. W. (2d) 158; In re Petition for County Ditch No. 15, 238 Minn. 15 , 55 N. W. (2d) 305 .
- Johnson v. County of Steele 60 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 1953
-
Johnson v. County of Steele
60 N.W.2d 32
Minn. 1953
406 ; Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , 196 N.W.
- Hawkins v. County of Kandiyohi 48 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 1951
-
Hawkins v. County of Kandiyohi
48 N.W.2d 441
Minn. 1951
Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , .
- In Re Judicial Ditch No. 12 36 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1949
- State ex rel. Great Northern Railway Co. v. District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District 36 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1949
-
State ex rel. Great Northern Railway Co. v. District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District
36 N.W.2d 336
Minn. 1949
161 Minn. 193 , ; Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , ; In re Judicial Ditch *493 No. 9, 167 Minn. 10 , ; State v. Oldre, 179 Minn. 566 , ; Nostdal v. County of Watonwan, 221 Minn. 376 , 22 N. W. (2d) 461 .
-
In Re Judicial Ditch No. 12
36 N.W.2d 336
Minn. 1949
413 ; Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , 196 N.W.
- Oleson v. County of Chippewa 31 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 1948
-
Oleson v. County of Chippewa
31 N.W.2d 432
Minn. 1948
In Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , 498 , 196 N.W.
- Nostdal v. County of Watonwan 22 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1946
-
Nostdal v. County of Watonwan
22 N.W.2d 461
Minn. 1946
That was definitely our holding in Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493, 497 , , where we held: “The legislature has given to the order establishing a public ditch all of the final and binding force of a judgment in rem.
- Slosser v. Great Northern Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1944
-
Slosser v. Great Northern Railway Co.
16 N.W.2d 47
Minn. 1944
The ditch was constructed, as it was, and without culverts, just as the county board contemplated- Whether or not it was proper to construct the ditch without culverts the ditch proceeding is now closed and res adjudicata and it cannot be attacked collaterally as it is sought to do in this case.” In Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , , plaintiff’s land was located north of a ditch.
- In Re Lake Elysian High-Water Level 293 N.W. 140 Minn. 1940
- Clarke v. Wenzel 208 Minn. 158 Minn. 1940
-
In Re Lake Elysian High-Water Level
293 N.W. 140
Minn. 1940
(Third syllabus paragraph, Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , 196 N.W.
-
Clarke v. Wenzel
208 Minn. 158
Minn. 1940
Their “new status” claim has for its basis that *164 by the establishment of the ditch and the assessments levied for its construction they acquired, “a property right, appurtenant to the land, and not to be taken or impaired, even through governmental action, except by due process of law.” (Third syllabus paragraph, Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , .)
- Township of Normania v. County of Yellow Medicine 286 N.W. 881 Minn. 1939
-
Township of Normania v. County of Yellow Medicine
286 N.W. 881
Minn. 1939
In re Judicial Ditch No. 4, 160 Minn. 387 , ; Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , .
- State v. Oldre 229 N.W. 878 Minn. 1930
-
State v. Oldre
229 N.W. 878
Minn. 1930
119 Minn. 334 , ; Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , ; State v. Radke, 161 Minn. 416 , ; State v. Holmes, 162 Minn. 173 , ; State v. Fritch, 175 Minn. 206 , .
- In Re Delinquent Taxes for 1921 220 N.W. 608 Minn. 1928
- State v. Fritch 220 N.W. 608 Minn. 1928
-
State v. Fritch
220 N.W. 608
Minn. 1928
Also see Lukes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , .
-
In Re Delinquent Taxes for 1921
220 N.W. 608
Minn. 1928
Also see Lukes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , 196 N.W.
- Felepe v. Towns of America and Cedarbend 219 N.W. 158 Minn. 1928
-
Felepe v. Towns of America and Cedarbend
219 N.W. 158
Minn. 1928
Garrett v. Skorstad, 143 Minn. 256 , ; Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , .
- Defiel v. County of Clay 210 N.W. 626 Minn. 1926
-
Defiel v. County of Clay
210 N.W. 626
Minn. 1926
James, 165 Minn. 34 , ; and Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , .
- Olson v. County of Roseau 205 N.W. 372 Minn. 1925
-
Olson v. County of Roseau
205 N.W. 372
Minn. 1925
It also is plain from what has been said that defendant is in n< position to avail itself of the decisions in Garrett v. Skorstad, 143 *455 Minn. 256, , and Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , .
- Huseby v. Schacherer 200 N.W. 471 Minn. 1924
-
Huseby v. Schacherer
200 N.W. 471
Minn. 1924
G. S. 1913, § 5531; Morey v. City of Duluth, 75 Minn. 221 , ; Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 193 , .