Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc., 2 N.W.2d 564.

30 citing documents.

Alliance Housing Incorporated v. County of Hennepin, Relator Minn. 2024
Alliance Housing Incorporated v. County of Hennepin, Relator Minn. 2024
Men’s Comm., d at 809 (“Whether the use to which the property has been devoted justifies tax exemption is a question of fact.”); (“In this particular case, such ownership and use [as to the issue of tax exemption] are fact questions.”).
Living Word Bible Camp v. County of Itasca 829 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 2013
Living Word Bible Camp v. County of Itasca 829 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 2013
State v. Willmar Hosp., Inc., 212 Minn. 38, 41-42 , (concluding that taxpayer failed to establish “that [it] devoted the property in question to a purely charitable use” and thus was not entitled to a property tax exemption).
Care Institute, Inc.-Roseville v. County of Ramsey 612 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2000
Care Institute, Inc.-Roseville v. County of Ramsey 612 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2000
Found., 282 Minn. at 252 , d at 374 (quoting State v. Willmar Hosp., 212 Minn. 38, 41 , ).
Minnesota State Bar Ass'n v. Commissioner of Taxation 240 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1976
Minnesota State Bar Ass'n v. Commissioner of Taxation 240 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1976
The bar associations in America have shouldered the main burden in effecting this purpose, but the test is whether the Minnesota bar association is organized and operated “exclusively for * * * charitable purposes.” In State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc. 212 Minn. 38, 41 , we noted that the phrase “purely public charity” in Minn. St.
North Star Research Institute v. County of Hennepin 236 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1975
North Star Research Institute v. County of Hennepin 236 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1975
In this context, the word “purely” means “wholly,” “solely,” and “exclusively.” State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc. 212 Minn. 38, 41
State v. United Church Homes, Inc. 195 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1972
State v. United Church Homes, Inc. 195 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1972
9), 4 we said: “In order for any institution to qualify for tax exemption under Minn. Const, art. 9, § 1 — and M. S. A. 272.02 enacted pursuant thereto — there must be a concurrence of ownership of the property by an institution of the type prescribed by the constitution and a use of the property for the purpose for which such institution was organized.” See, also, State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc. 212 Minn. 38 , Village of Hibbing v. Commissioner of Taxation, 217 Minn. 528 , , 156 A. L. R. 1294 (
Madonna Towers v. Commissioner of Taxation 167 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1969
Madonna Towers v. Commissioner of Taxation 167 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1969
1 See, State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc. 212 Minn. 38 , 2 N. W. (2d) 564 ; Christian Business Men’s Committee v. State, 228 Minn. 549 , 38 N. W. (2d) 803 .
Camping and Education Foundation v. State 164 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1969
Camping and Education Foundation v. State 164 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1969
tional provision, may be said to be an institution organized for the purpose of rendering aid, comfort, and assistance to the indigent and defective, open to the public generally, conducted without a view to profit, and supported and maintained by benevolent contributions.” As used in the statute, the word “purely” in the term “purely public charity” was defined in State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc. 212 Minn. 38, 41 , 2 N. W. (2d) 564, 566 , as follows: “* * * The word ‘purely’ means ‘wholly,’ ‘sol
State v. Evans Scholars Foundation of Minnesota, Inc. 153 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1967
State v. Evans Scholars Foundation of Minnesota, Inc. 153 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1967
272.02 provides in part: “All property described in this section to the extent herein limited shall be exempt from taxation: ‡ ^ ‡ “(6) Institutions of purely public charity.” In State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc. 212 Minn. 38, 41 , 2 N. W. (2d) 564, 566 , we said: “Minn, Const, art. 9, § 1, provides that institutions of purely public charity shall be exempt from taxation.
Validity of Claim of Assembly Homes, Inc. v. Yellow Medicine County 140 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1966
Validity of Claim of Assembly Homes, Inc. v. Yellow Medicine County 140 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1966
State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc. 212 Minn. 38, 41 , 2 N. W. (2d) 564, 566 .
Concordia College Corporation v. State 120 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1963
Concordia College Corporation v. State 120 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1963
State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc. 212 Minn. 38 , 2 N. W. (2d) 564 .
Christian Business Men's Committee of Minneapolis, Inc. v. State 38 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1949
Christian Business Men's Committee of Minneapolis, Inc. v. State 38 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1949
State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc. 212 Minn. 38, 41 , 2 N. W. (2d) 564, 566 .
Fairmont Community Hospital Assn. Inc. v. State 21 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1945
Distinguished Fairmont Community Hospital Assn. Inc. v. State 21 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1945
Our decision in State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc. 212 Minn. 38 , 2 N. W. (2d) 564 , is readily distinguishable on the facts there presented.
State v. Ritschel 20 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1945
State v. Ritschel 20 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1945
of Taxation, 217 Minn. 528 , 14 N. W. (2d) 923 , 156 A. L. R. 1294; State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc. 212 Minn. 38 , 2 N. W. (2d) 564 ; Ramsey County v. Macalester College, 51 Minn. 437 , , 18 L. R. A. 278.
Village of Hibbing v. Commissioner of Taxation 14 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1944
Village of Hibbing v. Commissioner of Taxation 14 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1944
Our decision in State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc. 212 Minn. 38 , 2 N. W. (2d) 564 , does not compel a finding that the association’s hospital was a private one, because there the finder of fact was permitted to differentiate upon evidence, not present here, that the hospital there involved was subject to private control and was devoted to substantial use for private profit.