Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 288 N.W. 584.

28 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Waste Management Board v. Bruesehoff 343 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Distinguished State Ex Rel. Waste Management Board v. Bruesehoff 343 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar, 206 Minn. 308 , 288 N.W.
McCannel v. County of Hennepin 301 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1980
McCannel v. County of Hennepin 301 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1980
446, 450 , 2 L.Ed.2d 479 (1958); Starkweather v. Blair, 245 Minn. 371, 394 , Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 206 Minn. 308, 312 , 288 N.W.
Otis Lodge, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation 206 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1972
Otis Lodge, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation 206 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1972
ems clear that as used in the statute under consideration the seasonal nature of a product is not something that is determined by the producer or by market fluctuations, but rather is controlled by elements peculiar to a particular period of the year which limit production and affect the time at which the product is most suitable for first processing.” Compare Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 206 Minn. 308 , where the court stated ( 206 Minn. 311 , ): “* * * It is matter of common knowledge,
State, by Lord v. Frisby 108 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1961
State, by Lord v. Frisby 108 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1961
3 Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 206 Minn. 308 , ; Rambeck v. La Bree, 156 Minn. 310 , ; Wenger v. Wenger, 200 Minn. 436 , .
Marine v. Whipple 104 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1960
McGuire v. Viking Tool & Die Co. 104 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1960
McGuire v. Viking Tool & Die Co. 104 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1960
The referee, and later the commission, refused to consider the employer registered pursuant to statutory requirements, citing and relying upon Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 206 Minn. 308 , , reaching the conclusion that procedural rules cannot and do not change substantive law and that the commission was interpreting a statute in the instant case where substantive law requires registration.
Minnesota State Federation of Labor v. Land O' Lakes Creameries, Inc. 79 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1956
Minnesota State Federation of Labor v. Land O' Lakes Creameries, Inc. 79 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1956
egulation is interpreted to mean that any product which, in accordance with customary methods of production <md economic feasibility, can be produced at any time during the year is nonseasonal, we feel that it unduly .restricts the meaning of the statute and is, therefore, a nullity,” citing Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108 , 7 N. W. (2d) 501 ; Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 206 Minn. 308 , .
Thomas v. Ramberg 73 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1955
Thomas v. Ramberg 73 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1955
Respondents rely heavily on Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 206 Minn. 308 , , quoting the syllabus contained in our opinion in that case.
Minnesota State Federation of Labor ex rel. Affiliated Organization v. Land O' Lakes Creameries, Inc. 68 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1955
Minnesota State Federation of Labor ex rel. Affiliated Organization v. Land O' Lakes Creameries, Inc. 68 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1955
Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 206 Minn. 308 , .
Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District v. City of St. Paul 61 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1953
Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District v. City of St. Paul 61 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1953
Paul, 81 Minn. 391 , ; Town of Hinckley v. Kettle River R. Co. 80 Minn. 32 , ; Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 206 Minn. 308 , ; State ex rel.
Hunt v. Rolloff 28 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1947
Christgau v. Fine 27 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1947
Christgau v. Fine 27 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1947
To begin with, it has been settled by our decision in Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 206 Minn. 308 , , that, under well-settled rules for determining whether a statutory provision is mandatory or directory, the provisions of the act in question directing the doing of certain things within certain times without any negative words restraining the doing thereof afterward are usually to be deemed director
Monaghan v. Armatage 15 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1944
Monaghan v. Armatage 15 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1944
The distinction between substantive provisions and those which are merely procedural and directory is clearly expounded in the opinion of the late Mr. Justice Stone, who spoke for this court in Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 206 Minn. 308 , 312 , et seq.
Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau 7 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1943
Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau 7 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1943
As well said by Mr. Justice Stone in Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 206 Minn. 308 , 312 , 288 N.W.
Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co. 290 N.W. 802 Minn. 1940
Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co. 290 N.W. 802 Minn. 1940
See Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 206 Minn. 308 , .