Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Minnesota Wheat Growers Co-Operative Marketing Ass'n v. Huggins, 203 N.W. 420.

38 citing documents.

State v. Hartmann 700 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2005
State v. Hartmann 700 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2005
Marketing Ass’n v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471, 480 , 203 N.W.
State v. Hartmann 681 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hartmann 681 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Ass’n v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471, 480 , 203 N.W.
State v. Wright 588 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Wright 588 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Ass’n v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471, 480 , 203 N.W.
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Tufte 435 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Tufte 435 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Minnesota Wheat Growers Co-op Marketing Association v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471 , 203 N.W.
Hylen v. Owens 251 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1977
Hylen v. Owens 251 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1977
Assn. v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471
Williams v. Rolfe 114 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1962
Williams v. Rolfe 114 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1962
Market Assn. v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471 , ; State ex rel.
Elliott v. Adeckes 59 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1953
Elliott v. Adeckes 59 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1953
Marketing Assn. v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471 , , wherein it appears that the association involved was that type of marketing co-operative.
Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth 48 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1951
Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth 48 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1951
Marketing Assn. v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471 , ; Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29 , ; Apartment Operators Assn. v. City of Minneapolis, 191 Minn. 365 , .
Paul v. Faricy 37 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1949
See, Malmquist v. Hellenic Community of Minneapolis, Inc. 163 Minn. 10 , .
Mesaba Loan Co. v. Sher 282 N.W. 823 Minn. 1938
Mesaba Loan Co. v. Sher 282 N.W. 823 Minn. 1938
M. Assn. v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471 , ; Hartford Co. v. Harrison, 301 U. S. 459 , 57 S. Ct. 838 , 81 L. ed. 1223.
State Ex Rel. Lichtscheidl v. Moeller 249 N.W. 330 Minn. 1933
State Ex Rel. Lichtscheidl v. Moeller 249 N.W. 330 Minn. 1933
Minnesota W. G. C. M. Assn. v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471 , .
State v. Brown 248 N.W. 822 Minn. 1933
State v. Brown 248 N.W. 822 Minn. 1933
531 , this court said: "In determining whether the basis of a classification made by the legislature in enacting a statute is substantial or fanciful, the court is governed by the rule tersely stated in Minnesota Wheat Growers Assn. v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471 , 483 , 203 N.W.
Loucks v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 246 N.W. 893 Minn. 1933
Co. 145 Minn. 310 , ; Malmquist v. Hellenic Community of Minneapolis, Inc. 163 Minn. 10 , ; Stauffer v. Schilpin, 167 Minn. 301 , ; McCarty v. Twin City E. & P. Assn. 172 Minn. 551 , ; Rich v. American Tobacco Co. 209 App. Div. 439 , 204 N. Y. S. 538; Wagen v. M. & St.
Lausche v. Denison-Harding Chevrolet Co. 243 N.W. 52 Minn. 1932
395 , and Malmquist v. Hellenic Community, 163 Minn. 10 , .
Lund v. Olson 237 N.W. 188 Minn. 1931
That being so, the following cases justify the order of the learned trial court directing a verdict for Olson: Provo v. Conrad, 130 Minn. 412 , ; Moore v. P. J. Downes Co. 150 Minn. 333 , ; Adams v. Nathanson, 161 Minn. 433 , ; Malmquist v. Hellenic Community, 163 Minn. 10 , ; Stauffer v. Schilpin, 167 Minn. 301 , ; Holmgren v. Red Lake Falls Mill.
McGuckin v. Harvey 225 N.W. 19 Minn. 1929
McGuckin v. Harvey 225 N.W. 19 Minn. 1929
M. Assn. v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471 , ; Christianson v. Haugland, 163 Minn. 73 , .
State v. Lefebvre 219 N.W. 167 Minn. 1928
State v. Lefebvre 219 N.W. 167 Minn. 1928
M. Assn. v. Huggins, Jr. 162 Minn. 471, 480 , , the court said that this provision was a recognition that the tillers of the soil are in a different position in reference to the marketing of their products.
Hoff v. First State Bank of Watson 218 N.W. 238 Minn. 1928
Hoff v. First State Bank of Watson 218 N.W. 238 Minn. 1928
M. Assn. v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471 , ; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366 , 18 S. Ct. 383 , 42 L. ed. 780; Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270 , 21 S. Ct. 128 , 45 L. ed. 186; Carroll v. Greenwich Ins.
Messenbring, Sr. v. Blackwood 213 N.W. 541 Minn. 1927
Simpson v. Egler, 166 Minn. 501 , ; Malmquist v. Hellenic Community, 163 Minn. 10 , ; Elliason v. Western C. & C. Co. 162 Minn. 213 , ; Adams v. Nathanson, 161 Minn. 433 , ; Fostrom v. Grossman, 161 Minn. 440 , ; Stoneman v. Washburn-Croshy Co. 153 Minn. 331 , ; Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; Behrens v. Hawkeye
State Ex Rel. Dedina v. School Board of School District No. 128 209 N.W. 531 Minn. 1926
State Ex Rel. Dedina v. School Board of School District No. 128 209 N.W. 531 Minn. 1926
neral law could have been made applicable in any case is a judicial question “and as such shall be judicially determined without regard to any legislative assertion on that subject.” In determining whether the basis of a classification made by the legislature in enacting a statute is substantial or fanciful, the court is governed by the rule tersely stated in Minn. Wheat Growers Assn. v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471, 483 , , as follows: *423 “The propriety of the classification for the purpose of legi
Stauffer v. Schilpin 208 N.W. 1004 Minn. 1926
Malmquist v. Hellenic Community, 163 Minn. 10 , ; Adams v. Nathanson, 161 Minn. 433 , ; Moore v. P. J. Downes Co. 150 *304 Minn. 333, ; Provo v. Conrad, 130 Minn. 412 , ; Slater v. Advance T. Co. 97 Minn. 305 , , 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 598; Goodrich v. Musgrave F. & A. Co. 154 Iowa, 637 , .
Tait v. Schmahl 204 N.W. 637 Minn. 1925
Tait v. Schmahl 204 N.W. 637 Minn. 1925
M. Assn. v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471 , .